Also known as: affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio · burden of proof · onus probandi
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A principle that places the burden of proof on the party asserting an affirmative claim rather than on the party making a denial.
Anthony Arnold and Adam Anderson both fired shots toward Alice Atkins during a confrontation. One bullet struck her, but ballistics could not identify the shooter. Alice sued both men for negligence. Each defendant had to prove his shot did not cause the injury because the maxim assigns the burden to those affirming lack of causation once the plaintiff shows both acted tortiously.
Amelia Amari offered her late father's will for probate. Ariana Azizi contested it, alleging lack of capacity. Amelia had to present prima facie evidence of due execution. Ariana then bore the burden of proving incapacity because the maxim places proof on the party asserting the invalidating fact.
Anika Anand and Apex Dynamics both released pollutants that combined to damage Aurora Biotech's crops. Aurora proved the releases were tortious and caused indivisible harm. Each defendant seeking to limit its share of damages had to prove the proper apportionment under the maxim's allocation of proof to the affirming party.
A state university limited certain athletic scholarships to male students. Female applicants challenged the policy. The state had to supply an exceedingly persuasive justification showing the classification was substantially related to an important objective because the maxim requires the party affirming the validity of the gender line to carry the burden.
Astra Aerospace's component failed and injured a worker. The plaintiff proved the failure occurred but had to show the defect caused the specific harm. Under the maxim the burden remained on the plaintiff as the party affirming causation rather than shifting to the manufacturer to disprove it.
A newspaper published statements about a private citizen's business dealings. The citizen sued for defamation. The plaintiff had to prove the statements were false and made with the requisite fault because the maxim assigns the burden of proof to the party affirming the elements of the claim.
In 1968, Chicago police officer Richard Nuccio shot and killed a youth named Nelson. State authorities prosecuted Nuccio and obtained a conviction for second-degree murder. The Nelson family retained petitioner Elmer Gertz, a Chicago attorney, to represent them in civil litigation against Nuccio. Respondent Robert Welch, Inc., publishes American Opinion, a monthly magazine expressing the views of the John Birch Society. In March 1969, the magazine published an article titled "FRAME-UP: Richard Nuccio And The War On Police." The article accused Gertz of participating in a Communist conspiracy to discredit local law enforcement, described him as a "Leninist" and "Communist-fronter," and claimed he had been an officer of the National Lawyers Guild, which it portrayed as a Communist organization involved in planning attacks on Chicago police during the 1968 Democratic Convention. The article contained numerous inaccuracies, including the false implication that Gertz had a criminal record. Gertz had served as an officer of the National Lawyers Guild approximately fifteen years earlier but had no involvement in planning the 1968 demonstrations. He had never been a member of the Marxist League for Industrial Democracy or the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. The managing editor of American Opinion made no effort to verify the charges against Gertz before publication and appended an editorial introduction stating that the author had conducted extensive research. Gertz filed a diversity action for libel in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court ruled that the statements constituted libel per se under Illinois law. After a trial, the jury awarded Gertz $50,000 in compensatory damages. The district court later entered judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, applying the New York Times standard. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the application of constitutional standards to defamation of a private individual.
View caseThe burden shifts to each defendant to prove its conduct did not cause the harm once the plaintiff shows both acted tortiously toward her and she suffered a single indivisible injury.
The proponent of the will must establish prima facie proof of due execution in all cases.
Each actor seeking apportionment must prove the proper division of damages.
The government bears the burden of providing an exceedingly persuasive justification that is genuine and not based on overbroad stereotypes.
The plaintiff must prove causation by a preponderance of the evidence.
…or overbroad." A physician's abortion conviction was affirmed. In Thompson , n. 2, the court observed that any issue as to the burden of proof under the exemption of Art. 1196 "is not before us." But see Veevers v. State , 172 Tex. Cr. R. 162, 168-169, 354 S. W. 2d 161, 166-167 (1962). Cf. United States v. Vuitch , 402 U. S.…