Burden of proof in personal injury claims


Published by a ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû PI & Clinical Negligence expert
Practice notes

Burden of proof in personal injury claims


Published by a ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû PI & Clinical Negligence expert

Practice notes
imgtext

Balance of probabilities

The claimant must prove that, on the balance of probabilities, the defendant has been negligent or has breached their statutory duties. Proof on the balance of probabilities means proof that it is more likely than not. If the claimant’s evidence is equally consistent with the presence or absence of negligence or breach of the duty then the claim will fail.

If the defendant has been convicted of an offence arising out of the alleged negligent act, this will create a rebuttable presumption that they committed that offence. In these circumstances the burden of proof is reversed. It is then for the defendant to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, there was no negligence. Convictions such

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Personal injury definition
What does Personal injury mean?

An injury to the body or mind as opposed to property.

Read more readmore

Popular documents

Where a claimant has obtained default judgment pursuant to CPR 12.4(1) will the court order a disposal

Where a claimant has obtained default judgment pursuant to CPR 12.4(1) will the court order a disposal hearing or allocate the case to a track and give standard fast track directions?Setting aside default judgmentWhere a claimant has obtained default judgment, a defendant may still wish to defend

If a claimant has issued proceedings against two defendants and subsequently the first defendant makes a

If a claimant has issued proceedings against two defendants and subsequently the first defendant makes a Part 36 offer to settle the matter despite liability being outstanding between the two defendants, can the first defendant then pursue the second defendant for a recovery? Will separate

Material contribution in personal injury claims

Material contribution in personal injury claimsThe standard test for determining whether the defendant’s breach caused the claimant’s loss is the ‘but for’ test. This test requires the court to consider: but for the breach of the duty by the defendant, would the claimant have sustained the damage?

Was the damage foreseeable?

Was the damage foreseeable?STOP PRESS: This Practice Note is under review in the light of the Supreme Court decision in: Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 6. For further information, see: LNB News 14/02/2024 62.The concept of foreseeability and remoteness in