In personal injury cases, you must show that your version of events is more believable and valid than the other side’s. This is called the burden of proof, an idea of how convinced the jury needs to be to support your case.
If you are pursuing a California personal injury claim, this article will help you understand how the burden of proof works and how crucial it is in proving your case.
What Is the Burden of Proof in Civil Cases in California?
In civil cases like personal injury claims, the main objective is to get financial compensation for the damages or injuries you’ve suffered due to an accident. To succeed, you must show that the accident directly caused your injuries.
When proving that your injuries result from an incident caused by another person, you must demonstrate that your version of events is more likely accurate than the other party’s. This is called the burden of proof in personal injury law.
According to Evidence Code 115, the burden of proof is the responsibility a party has to prove something in a case using evidence. Depending on the standard required, this could mean they must create a reasonable doubt about a fact or show that something is more likely true.
In most civil cases, unless the law says otherwise, the burden of proof is based on the “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning that the claim is more likely to be true.
What Are the Standards of Proof in California?
In California, standards of proof establish the amount of evidence needed for a party to win in court. There are three primary standards applied in different types of cases:
- Preponderance of the Evidence: This is the lowest standard, commonly used in civil cases, such as personal injury claims. To meet this standard, you must show that your version of events is more likely than not true, essentially, over 50% probable. If one side’s argument appears more convincing or plausible than the other’s, they satisfy this requirement.
- Clear and Convincing Evidence: This standard is higher than a preponderance and is used in certain civil cases involving significant personal interests, like fraud or accidents resulting from DUI. It requires the party to prove that their claim is highly probable or substantially more likely to be valid than not.
- Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the highest standard of proof commonly reserved for criminal cases. It demands that the prosecution establish the defendant’s guilt to a degree that leaves no reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds. This standard reflects the severe consequences of criminal trials, where a conviction can result in loss of freedom or even life.
A plaintiff in a personal injury case is typically expected to establish their case by a “preponderance of the evidence.” This means that they must demonstrate that what they claim occurred was more likely to have happened than not.
For instance, the jury might not be sure that the plaintiff and the two witnesses are telling an accurate story. Still, they might determine that the plaintiff’s story is more likely to happen than the other party’s if both witnesses support the initial story, contrary to the latter.
What Is Preponderance of Evidence?
The burden of proof in these cases is about how convincingly you present your evidence. You need to make it clear that your version of what happened is more likely to be true than that of the other party, which is known as the preponderance of the evidence.
According to California Civil Jury Instruction 200, you have to demonstrate that your claims are more likely valid than not. This means you only need enough evidence to make your case at least 51% believable to win compensation.
Now, what constitutes evidence in civil cases? Evidence Code 140 states that evidence refers to anything like testimony, documents, physical objects, or any other proof that can be seen or experienced, which is presented to help prove whether something is true or not.
In a personal injury case, evidence can be in the form of:
- testimonies of witnesses
- police reports
- photos of the accident
- surveillance or CCTV footage capturing the sequence of events leading up to the accident
- vehicle repair or replacement bills
- medical diagnosis and other injury-related documents
Let’s take a car accident caused by a drunk driver, for example. When filing for an accident case against the driver, you must have SUFFICIENT evidence showing that their actions, particularly driving while intoxicated, directly caused the crash. You can do this by presenting evidence, such as:
- A police report indicating that the authorities filed a DUI violation against the driver,
- Witness testimonies saying that the driver was behaving erratically before the collision,
- Photos indicating physical evidence of alcohol in the drunk driver’s vehicle or
- Receipts of alcohol or any other items that may indicate intoxication.
Note that if the evidence from both sides is equal, you haven’t effectively proved your case against the defendant. When this happens, you won’t be able to get any compensation for the damages related to the accident.
What Is Clear and Convincing Evidence in Personal Injury Cases?
Less frequently, a plaintiff in a civil case might have to establish a requirement known as “clear and convincing” proof. This is typically carried out in situations when punitive damages are demanded. In that situation, the plaintiff must provide convincing evidence that the defendant committed fraud, oppression, or malice.
A preponderance of the evidence standard is greater than this standard of proof, but it still falls short of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It effectively means that, rather than only demonstrating that the plaintiff’s account is more likely than not accurate, the jury must hold the account to be highly likely to be true.
Lawyer’s Tip: Punitive damages are additional awards approved by the court if the defendant’s actions are highly egregious or malicious.
What Does a Defendant Have to Prove in a Personal Injury Litigation?
The burden of proof in a civil case falls on the plaintiff, meaning it’s their responsibility to convince the jury that their version of events is more likely true than not. If the plaintiff fails to meet this standard, the defendant can win the case without presenting evidence or a defense.
Defendants often take advantage of this by simply challenging the plaintiff’s claims and pointing out weaknesses in their evidence rather than having to prove they aren’t liable. This is why defendants typically focus on creating doubt about the plaintiff’s allegations rather than presenting a full defense.
However, defendants can also raise affirmative defenses, where they admit the basic facts but argue there are additional reasons why they shouldn’t be held liable. When a defendant introduces an affirmative defense, the burden of proof shifts to them.
How Does Affirmative Defense Affect My Injury Case?
In injury cases, defendants can use affirmative defenses, which allow them to assert that, although they were involved in the accident, they should not be held liable for specific legal reasons. By raising an affirmative defense, the defendant assumes the responsibility of proving the validity of their argument, meaning they have to satisfy the burden of proof in this case.
Here are some common affirmative defenses seen in accident cases:
Comparative Negligence
The defendant may argue that the plaintiff shares the blame for the accident. California follows pure comparative negligence. This means that the compensation a plaintiff receives is reduced according to their percentage of fault. A defendant usually raises this defense if enough evidence shows that their actions contributed to the accident, but so does the plaintiff’s.
For instance, the defendant is guilty of drinking while driving, which caused the crash. However, during the accident, it was discovered that the plaintiff was distracted by their phone, failing to avoid the collision.
In such a situation, if the court agrees with the defendant that the plaintiff was 30% at fault for their damages, they can claim 70% restitution. Similarly, the defendant can also recover 30% of compensation for the damages.
Sudden Emergency Doctrine
The Sudden Medical Emergency Doctrine comes into play when the defendant contends that they encountered an unforeseen emergency that required them to act reasonably, given the circumstances.
For example, suppose another vehicle suddenly swerved into their lane, causing them to lose control and collide with another car. In that case, the defendant might argue that they could not have avoided the accident due to this unexpected situation.
This defense can also allow drivers to avoid liability for an accident if they experience a sudden, unexpected medical event that prevents them from safely operating their vehicle. Under this doctrine, the accident is considered unavoidable due to the medical condition, meaning the driver could be relieved of responsibility.
For this defense to apply, several conditions must be met:
- Proof of a Medical Emergency: The driver must have experienced a sudden medical condition, such as a heart attack, seizure, or loss of consciousness, directly leading to the accident.
- Inability to Control the Vehicle: The medical episode must have prevented the driver from maintaining control of the vehicle. The emergency should have completely hindered their ability to operate the car safely.
- No Prior Warning: There must be no prior knowledge or history of the medical condition that could have alerted the driver to the possibility of an emergency. This ensures that the driver wasn’t aware of any risk that might have made driving unsafe.
If these conditions are established, the driver might avoid liability, as the accident is unavoidable due to the sudden emergency doctrine.
Assumption of Risk
The defendant could invoke the Assumption of Risk defense if the plaintiff willingly engaged in hazardous behavior that contributed to the accident.
When someone knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risks associated with an activity, they accept responsibility for any potential adverse outcomes. This means they are releasing the other party from liability in the event of an accident. This principle often applies to activities like recreational sports and other high-risk events, where participants may be required to sign a liability waiver.
A liability waiver is a legal document that frees a company from responsibility if an accident occurs. For example, amusement parks typically ask guests to sign a waiver if the activity they will engage in is hazardous, acknowledging the risks involved. By signing the waiver, participants confirm their understanding and acceptance of the risks, known as the assumption of risk.
Statute of Limitations
The defendant might assert that the plaintiff’s right to initiate a lawsuit is no longer valid because it falls outside the established statute of limitations. If the plaintiff files their lawsuit after the legal deadline has passed, the defendant can use this defense to seek a dismissal of the case.
According to the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §335.1, you must file for personal injury two years from the accident date. However, the deadline extends to three years if your claim involves property damage only. Note that certain factors may further adjust these timelines.
Mechanical Failure Not Due to Driver Negligence
A defendant could argue that a mechanical issue beyond their control caused the accident. To successfully establish this defense, the defendant must show that they had adequately maintained the vehicle and that the mechanical failure was sudden and unforeseeable.
In each of these scenarios, the defendant must present ample evidence to persuade the court regarding their defense. If they succeed, an affirmative defense can reduce or eliminate their liability in the accident.
Do I Need an Attorney to Prove Burden of Proof?
While you can technically file a personal injury claim independently in California, this process can be complex, especially for cases involving severe injuries or extensive damages. When such cases happen, the insurance company will avoid paying the damages by offering a settlement too quickly or providing affirmative defenses against you. How can you win your case if you have limited knowledge about personal injury law?
A California personal injury lawyer can assist by collecting evidence, establishing liability, and building a solid case on your behalf. They can also take on these critical tasks to support your case:
- Compile supporting evidence
- Demonstrate liability
- Calculate your damages accurately
- Ensure all legal deadlines are met
- Represent you in court if needed
At the Law Offices of Larry H. Parker, our dedicated California injury attorneys are here to protect your rights and pursue the compensation you deserve. We carefully review every case to develop customized legal strategies for your situation.
To discuss your options, call us today at 800-333-0000 for a free consultation.
Don’t handle your accident claim alone. Talk to our car accident attorneys for a no-cost case assessment today.
What Our Clients Have to Say About Us
While many personal injury attorneys can handle your case and develop a legal strategy, our team stands out for its relentless advocacy. We ensure that our personal injury lawyers are adequately able to create a strong claim, as confirmed by our previous clients:
“My husband and I are pleased with the results of our case; they solved it very fast! We will refer our friends if they need a lawyer who seriously takes cases. And they also speak Spanish.” – Lucia R.
Frequently Asked Questions About Car Accident Claims
Need to learn more about accident claims? We want to help you! Here are common questions injured victims ask, which may clarify various aspects of your case.
- 6 Things To Consider When Calculating Personal Injury Settlements
- Four Fast Facts You Should Know About Your Personal Injury Claim and Medical Record Releases
- These Are the Steps You Need to Take if You Want to Maximize Your Personal Injury Case Payout
- These Are the Four Steps You Should Take After Being Injured by Another Person’s Negligence
References
assumption of risk | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Law.Cornell.Edu. Retrieved September 10, 2025, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assumption_of_risk
California Code, CCP 335.1. (n.d.). California Legislative Information. Retrieved October 25, 2024, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP§ionNum=335.1
California Code, EVID 115. (n.d.). California Legislative Information. Retrieved October 25, 2024, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=115.&lawCode=EVID
Civil Jury Instructions – jury instructions. (n.d.). California Courts. Retrieved October 25, 2024, from https://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/317.htm
emergency doctrine | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved September 3, 2025, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/emergency_doctrine
preponderance of the evidence | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Law.Cornell.Edu. Retrieved October 25, 2024, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preponderance_of_the_evidence
Section 140 – “Evidence”, Cal. Evid. Code § 140. (n.d.). Casetext. Retrieved October 25, 2024, from https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-evidence-code/division-2-words-and-phrases-defined/section-140-evidence
The sudden emergency doctrine. (2018, June 12). California Courts. Retrieved October 25, 2024, from https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B283420M.DOC
