Why Are Your Chances Of Proving Liability for an Accident Greater In A Civil Case Than In A Criminal Case?
Accident victims often believe their prospects of recovering compensation are grim because the at-fault driver — who caused a fatal accident and faced criminal charges — was acquitted. While criminal conviction of the at-fault driver would have provided strong evidence of guilt for proving negligence in a civil case, their acquittal is not the end of your case. Experienced attorneys in New York can review the circumstances of your auto accident and devise effective case strategies for recovering compensation.
The burden of proof in a criminal case is much different than in a civil case. In a criminal case, the attorney must present evidence that convinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime. In a civil case, instead of seeking incarceration, the plaintiff — in this case, the injury victim — seeks compensation for damages. Potential penalties the defendant faces are much less in a civil case, and consequently, so is the burden of proof. The burden of proof for this type of civil case is a preponderance of the evidence, which means the plaintiff’s attorney must convince the judge or jury that the facts of the plaintiff's case are more likely true than not. Evidence that the defendant caused the accident through negligence or wrongdoing must be more than 50 percent believable.
Whenever you suffer injury in an accident — especially when that injury is serious — you should immediately seek legal counsel from experienced New York auto accident attorneys who can steer your case toward a favorable resolution.
At Rich & Rich, P.C., we conduct thorough investigations to gather evidence, determine the cause of the auto accident, identify liable parties and hold them accountable. Contact us at 646.736.3999 for your free consultation.