Also known as: affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio · burden of proof · onus probandi
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see 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.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
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.
The 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.…