Also known as: burden of proof · proof burden of · burden of the proof
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The duty borne by a party to produce evidence and persuade the fact finder that a proposition is true.
Phuong Pham suffered a single injury when two trucks owned by Prosperity Investments and Paragon Construction collided with her vehicle. Evidence showed both companies had negligently maintained their brakes but could not identify which truck struck first. The court shifted the burden to each company to prove its truck did not cause the harm.
Paige Porter offered her late uncle's will for probate. The contestants challenged due execution. The court required Paige to present prima facie evidence that the will was properly signed and witnessed before the contestants had to prove any lack of capacity or undue influence.
Pavel Petrov suffered indivisible harm from combined emissions released by Premier Manufacturing and Prism Analytics. Each defendant sought to limit its share of damages. The court placed the burden on both companies to prove a reasonable basis for apportioning the harm between them.
Patrick Phan challenged a state policy that denied male officers certain hazardous-duty pay available only to female officers. The government defended the classification. The court required the state to supply an exceedingly persuasive justification showing the rule substantially advanced an important objective.
Peter Park sued Paragon Construction after a scaffold collapsed. He alleged the company's failure to inspect caused his fall. The court required Peter to prove that the negligent inspection was a factual cause of his injuries before any burden shifted to the defendant.
Pierce Patterson, a private citizen, sued a newspaper for publishing a false statement about his business practices. The court required Pierce to prove falsity and fault as part of his prima facie case before any burden shifted to the publisher.
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 plaintiff must prove that the defendant's tortious conduct caused the harm. This allocation appears in the default rule of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 433 B(1).
Supporting sources
The burden shifts when two or more defendants acted tortiously, only one caused the harm, and the plaintiff cannot identify which one. Each defendant then must prove it did not cause the injury.
Supporting sources
The proponent must establish prima facie proof of due execution in every case and, when also petitioning, proof of death and venue. Contestants then bear the burden on issues such as lack of capacity or undue influence.
Supporting sources
Each actor seeking to limit liability on apportionment grounds must prove the basis for dividing the harm among the tortfeasors.
Supporting sources
The government must supply an exceedingly persuasive justification showing the classification is substantially related to an important objective that is genuine rather than hypothesized.
Supporting sources
…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.…