So, what’s the deal with legal liability? Basically, it’s about who’s on the hook when something goes wrong. Whether it’s a slip-and-fall or a broken contract, the law has ways of figuring out who is responsible for the mess and what needs to be done about it. This isn’t just for lawyers; understanding the basics of legal liability can help anyone avoid trouble or know their rights when things get complicated.
Key Takeaways
- Legal liability means being legally responsible for harm or a violation of a duty, and it can be civil, criminal, or administrative.
- Negligence involves failing to act with reasonable care, leading to harm, and requires proving duty, breach, causation, and damages.
- Intentional torts are deliberate acts that cause harm, like assault or defamation, where the person meant to do the action.
- Strict liability holds someone responsible even without proving fault, often seen in cases involving defective products or dangerous activities.
- Understanding defenses like consent or self-defense, and remedies such as damages, is key to navigating claims of legal liability.
Understanding Legal Liability
Legal liability is basically about who’s on the hook when something goes wrong. It’s the state of being legally responsible for something, usually harm or a wrong committed against another person or entity. Think of it as the legal system’s way of saying, ‘You caused this, so you need to fix it.’ This responsibility can come in many forms, and understanding it is key to navigating disputes and avoiding trouble.
Defining Civil Liability
Civil liability specifically deals with disputes between individuals or organizations, rather than offenses against the state. When someone faces civil liability, it typically means they have to compensate the injured party for losses they’ve caused. This is different from criminal law, where the state prosecutes an individual for breaking a law. In civil cases, the focus is on making the wronged party whole again, often through monetary damages. It’s about private wrongs and their remedies.
Distinguishing Civil Versus Criminal Liability
It’s pretty important to know the difference between civil and criminal liability. Criminal liability involves actions that are considered offenses against society as a whole, prosecuted by the government, and potentially leading to jail time or significant fines. Civil liability, on the other hand, deals with private disputes between parties. The goal here is usually compensation for harm. For example, a drunk driver might face criminal charges for DUI and also civil liability for the medical bills and property damage they caused to the other driver. The standards of proof are also different; criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil cases often just need a preponderance of the evidence.
The Role of Legal Liability in Dispute Resolution
Legal liability plays a huge role in how we resolve disagreements. Knowing who is likely to be held responsible helps parties assess their positions and decide whether to settle a dispute or take it to court. It provides a framework for accountability and a basis for seeking remedies. Without the concept of legal liability, there would be little incentive for individuals and businesses to act responsibly or to compensate those they’ve harmed. It’s a cornerstone of dispute resolution and maintaining order in society.
Foundations of Liability
Understanding where legal liability comes from is pretty important if you want to grasp how the law works. It’s not just about what someone did wrong, but also about the underlying principles that make them responsible for it. Think of it as the bedrock upon which all legal responsibility is built.
Sources of Legal Authority
Laws don’t just appear out of thin air. They come from specific places, and knowing these sources helps us understand why a law exists and how it should be applied. The main places we look for law are:
- Constitutions: These are the supreme laws of the land, setting out the basic framework of government and fundamental rights. Everything else has to line up with the constitution.
- Statutes: These are laws passed by legislative bodies, like Congress or state legislatures. They cover a huge range of topics, from traffic rules to business regulations.
- Regulations: Government agencies create these rules to implement and enforce statutes. Think of them as the detailed instructions for how a law will actually work.
- Case Law (Precedent): In many legal systems, decisions made by courts in past cases create binding rules for future similar cases. This is how laws can evolve and adapt.
The interaction between these sources is complex. A statute might be interpreted by a court, and that interpretation can become a key part of the law itself. It’s a constant dialogue between lawmakers and judges.
Legal Rights, Duties, and Obligations
At its core, law is about balancing the rights people have with the duties they owe to others. A legal right is something the law recognizes and protects, like the right to not be harmed. Correspondingly, there’s a legal duty or obligation to respect that right. If someone fails to meet their duty, and it causes harm, that’s often where liability comes in. These duties can be broad, like the duty to act reasonably, or very specific, like the duty to pay a debt.
The Rule of Law and Legal Authority
The concept of the rule of law is pretty central. It means that everyone, including the government, is subject to the law. No one is above it. Legal authority is what gives laws their power to be enforced. This authority usually comes from the constitution or laws passed by legitimate legislative bodies. When we talk about legal authority, we’re talking about the legitimate power to create, interpret, and enforce laws. This system is what keeps things orderly and predictable, preventing arbitrary decisions and ensuring that legal processes are followed.
Negligence and Legal Liability
When we talk about legal liability, negligence is a big one. It’s not about someone intentionally trying to cause harm, but rather about failing to act with the level of care that a reasonable person would in a similar situation. This failure, if it leads to someone else getting hurt or suffering a loss, can result in legal responsibility. Think of it as a slip-up, a moment of carelessness that has consequences.
Elements of Negligence
To prove negligence in court, a few key things need to be established. It’s like a checklist that a plaintiff (the person bringing the lawsuit) has to go through. If any of these pieces are missing, the negligence claim usually falls apart. The core components are:
- Duty: The defendant owed a legal duty of care to the plaintiff.
- Breach: The defendant failed to meet that duty of care.
- Causation: The defendant’s breach of duty directly caused the plaintiff’s injury.
- Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual harm or loss as a result.
Duty of Care in Negligence Claims
This duty of care is the bedrock of any negligence case. It’s the legal obligation to act in a way that doesn’t create an unreasonable risk of harm to others. What constitutes ‘reasonable care’ can vary a lot depending on the circumstances. For example, a doctor has a higher duty of care when treating a patient than a casual acquaintance might have when offering advice. The law expects people to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar conditions. This standard helps set expectations for behavior in society.
Breach of Duty and Causation
Once a duty of care is established, the next step is showing that the defendant actually breached that duty. This means their actions, or inactions, fell below the expected standard of care. It wasn’t just a minor deviation; it was a failure to act reasonably. Following that, you have to prove causation. This has two parts: actual cause (or ‘but-for’ causation – meaning the harm wouldn’t have happened but for the defendant’s actions) and proximate cause (meaning the harm was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions). It’s a chain reaction, and the plaintiff needs to show the defendant’s link in that chain is clear.
Damages Resulting from Negligence
Finally, all of this leads to damages. The plaintiff must demonstrate that they actually suffered some form of loss or injury. This could be physical injuries, property damage, lost income, or even emotional distress. Without demonstrable harm, there’s no basis for a negligence claim, even if the defendant was careless. The goal of awarding damages is typically to make the injured party whole again, as much as money can do, by compensating them for their losses.
Intentional Torts and Liability
Sometimes, harm isn’t just an accident. It’s the result of someone deliberately doing something that causes injury or loss to another person. These are called intentional torts, and they form a significant part of legal liability. Unlike negligence, where the focus is on carelessness, intentional torts require proof that the person acted with a certain state of mind – they intended the act itself, or at least intended the consequences that followed.
Intentional Acts Causing Harm
When we talk about intentional acts causing harm, we’re looking at actions where the perpetrator meant to do what they did, and that action directly led to someone else’s injury or damage. This isn’t about wishing someone ill will; it’s about the voluntary performance of an act that results in harm. Think of it as a direct cause-and-effect, but with a deliberate action at the start.
Assault and Battery
These two often go hand-in-hand, but they’re distinct legal concepts. Assault is about creating a reasonable fear of immediate harmful or offensive contact. You don’t actually have to touch someone for assault to occur; just making them believe they’re about to be harmed is enough. Battery, on the other hand, is the actual harmful or offensive physical contact. So, if someone swings a fist at you and you see it coming, that’s assault. If they connect, that’s battery.
Defamation and Reputation Damage
This area deals with false statements that harm a person’s reputation. It can be spoken (slander) or written (libel). The key here is that the statement must be false and it must actually damage the person’s standing in the community or their ability to earn a living. Truth is generally a solid defense against defamation claims.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
This is a bit more complex. It involves extreme and outrageous conduct that is intended to cause, and does cause, severe emotional distress to another person. It’s not for everyday annoyances or minor upsets. The behavior has to be truly shocking and beyond the bounds of decent society for a claim to succeed. The resulting emotional harm also needs to be significant.
Here’s a quick look at the elements often required for these types of claims:
| Tort Type | Key Elements |
|---|---|
| Assault | Intent to cause apprehension; Reasonable apprehension of imminent contact. |
| Battery | Intent to cause contact; Harmful or offensive contact occurs. |
| Defamation (Libel/Slander) | False statement; Published to a third party; Harms reputation; Damages shown. |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress | Extreme/outrageous conduct; Intent to cause distress; Severe distress results. |
Proving intent can be tricky. Courts often look at the circumstances surrounding the act to determine if the person meant to do what they did, or if they knew with substantial certainty that their actions would lead to the harmful result. It’s not always about a direct confession; it’s about inferring intent from behavior and context.
Strict Liability Principles
Sometimes, you can be held responsible for harm even if you weren’t careless or didn’t mean to cause trouble. This is the core idea behind strict liability. It’s a legal concept that says in certain situations, the mere act of doing something that causes harm is enough to make you liable, regardless of your intent or how careful you were. Think of it as a way the law tries to manage inherently risky activities or products that could cause widespread problems.
Imposing Responsibility Without Fault
Unlike negligence, where you have to prove someone failed to act reasonably, strict liability skips that step. The focus shifts from the defendant’s conduct to the nature of the activity or product itself. If the activity is deemed abnormally dangerous, or if a product is defective and causes injury, liability can attach without needing to show a lack of care. This approach aims to ensure that those who engage in high-risk activities or put products into the stream of commerce bear the costs of any resulting harm. It’s a way to allocate risk to the party best positioned to prevent it or absorb the loss. This is a key difference when considering civil liability.
Product Liability and Defective Products
This is probably the most common area where you’ll see strict liability in action. When a product is sold and it turns out to be defective, causing injury to a consumer, the manufacturer, distributor, or seller can be held liable. It doesn’t matter if they took every possible precaution during manufacturing or design. If the product was defective when it left their control and that defect caused harm, they’re on the hook. There are generally three types of defects that can lead to product liability claims:
- Design Defects: The product’s design itself is inherently unsafe, even if it was manufactured perfectly according to that design.
- Manufacturing Defects: An error occurred during the production process, making a specific unit of the product dangerous, even if the design was sound.
- Failure to Warn: The product lacked adequate instructions or warnings about potential dangers that weren’t obvious to the user.
Liability for Animal-Related Incidents
Owning animals, especially those known to be dangerous or having a propensity to cause harm, can also trigger strict liability. In many places, if you own a dog that bites someone, you might be held strictly liable for the injuries, even if the dog had never shown aggression before. This often depends on local laws and whether the animal is considered
Vicarious Liability in Practice
Sometimes, you can be held responsible for what someone else does, even if you weren’t directly involved. That’s the basic idea behind vicarious liability. It’s a legal concept where one party is held liable for the wrongful actions of another. This often pops up in employment situations, but it’s not limited to just that. The core principle is that the responsible party had some kind of relationship with the wrongdoer that makes them accountable.
Responsibility for Another’s Actions
This type of liability means that a person or entity can be legally obligated to pay for damages caused by someone else. It’s not about direct fault; it’s about a relationship that the law recognizes as creating responsibility. Think of it as a way to ensure that victims have a party with sufficient resources to compensate them for their losses, especially when the direct wrongdoer might not have the means.
Employer Liability for Employee Conduct
This is probably the most common scenario where vicarious liability comes into play. Employers can be held responsible for the actions of their employees if those actions happen while the employee is working. This is often referred to by the Latin phrase respondeat superior, which basically means "let the master answer." It’s based on the idea that employers benefit from their employees’ work, so they should also bear the risks associated with that work. This doesn’t mean employers are liable for everything an employee does, though. There are limits.
Scope of Employment Considerations
So, when exactly is an employer on the hook for an employee’s actions? The key factor is whether the employee was acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the incident. This can be a tricky area to define. Generally, it includes actions that the employee is hired to perform, or actions that are incidental to their job duties. It also covers acts that are done to serve the employer’s interests, even if they are done improperly or negligently. However, if an employee goes completely off on a personal tangent, or commits an intentional act that is unrelated to their job, the employer is usually not vicariously liable. Figuring out if an act falls within the scope of employment often depends on the specific facts of the case and can involve looking at things like:
- The time and place of the act.
- Whether the act was of the kind the employee was hired to perform.
- Whether the act was done to further the employer’s business.
- Whether the employer had reason to foresee the employee’s actions.
It’s important to remember that vicarious liability is a complex area of law, and the specifics can vary depending on the jurisdiction. Understanding these principles is vital for businesses to manage their risks and for individuals seeking compensation for harm.
Vicarious liability shifts responsibility from the direct wrongdoer to another party based on a specific legal relationship, most commonly an employer-employee dynamic. The critical question is often whether the wrongful act occurred within the scope of that relationship.
Defenses Against Liability Claims
Even when it seems like someone might be on the hook for damages, there are often ways to push back. These are called defenses, and they’re pretty important in figuring out who’s actually responsible. Think of them as the "but what if" scenarios that the law considers.
Consent as a Defense
This one’s pretty straightforward. If someone agrees to a certain risk or action, they generally can’t later sue if something goes wrong because of that agreed-upon action. For example, if you sign up for a boxing match, you’re consenting to the possibility of getting hit. It doesn’t mean you’re okay with being attacked outside the ring, but within the context of the match, consent can be a valid defense against a claim of battery. It’s all about whether the person actually gave permission, and if that permission covered the specific harm that occurred.
Self-Defense and Necessity
These defenses come into play when someone acts to protect themselves or others, or to prevent a greater harm. Self-defense allows for the use of reasonable force to protect against an imminent threat. If someone reasonably believes they are about to be attacked, they can use force to stop it. However, the force used has to be proportional to the threat. You can’t use deadly force to stop a minor shove. Necessity is a bit different; it’s about acting to prevent a more serious harm, even if it means causing some lesser harm. Imagine breaking into a cabin to escape a blizzard – you’re damaging property, but you’re doing it to save your life. The law looks at whether the harm prevented was significantly greater than the harm caused.
Assumption of Risk
This defense applies when someone knowingly and voluntarily accepts the potential dangers associated with an activity. If you decide to go bungee jumping, you’re aware of the risks involved. If you get injured because of the inherent risks of bungee jumping (not because of equipment failure, for instance), you might not be able to recover damages. It’s important that the person understood the risk and chose to proceed anyway. This is often seen in sports and recreational activities.
Statutory Immunity
Sometimes, laws themselves provide protection from liability. This is called statutory immunity. Government entities, for example, often have a degree of immunity from lawsuits, though it’s not absolute. Certain professionals might also have immunity in specific situations, like doctors reporting suspected child abuse. These immunities are put in place for public policy reasons, to allow certain actions to be taken without fear of constant legal challenges.
It’s important to remember that defenses aren’t a one-size-fits-all solution. Their applicability depends heavily on the specific facts of the case and the laws of the jurisdiction. What works in one situation might not work in another.
Here’s a quick look at how some defenses might play out:
| Defense | Description |
|---|---|
| Consent | Plaintiff agreed to the action or risk that caused the harm. |
| Self-Defense | Reasonable force used to prevent imminent harm to oneself or others. |
| Necessity | Action taken to prevent a greater harm, even if it causes lesser harm. |
| Assumption of Risk | Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepted the potential dangers. |
| Statutory Immunity | Law provides specific protection from liability for certain individuals/entities. |
Understanding these defenses is key to grasping the full picture of legal liability. They show that the legal system tries to be fair and considers the circumstances surrounding an event, not just the outcome. If you’re facing a legal issue, talking to a legal professional about potential defenses is a good idea. They can help you understand your options and how the law applies to your specific situation. For more on how the law works, you can look into civil law principles.
Damages and Legal Remedies
When someone suffers harm due to another party’s wrongful actions, the law provides ways to address that injury. These are known as damages and legal remedies. The goal is usually to put the injured party back in the position they would have been in had the harm not occurred, or sometimes, to punish the wrongdoer.
Compensatory Damages for Losses
These are the most common type of damages awarded. They are meant to directly compensate the injured party for actual losses they’ve experienced. Think of it as making up for what was lost. This can cover a wide range of things, from the obvious costs of medical treatment to less tangible losses.
- Medical Expenses: Bills from doctors, hospitals, therapy, and medication.
- Lost Wages: Income lost because the injury prevented the person from working.
- Property Damage: Costs to repair or replace damaged belongings.
The core idea is to make the injured party whole again financially.
Economic Versus Non-Economic Damages
Within compensatory damages, we often see a distinction between economic and non-economic losses. Economic damages are pretty straightforward because they have a clear monetary value.
- Economic Damages: These are quantifiable financial losses. Examples include:
- Non-Economic Damages: These are harder to put a dollar amount on because they relate to subjective experiences. They include:
It can be challenging to assign a precise value to these types of losses, but they are a significant part of many legal claims.
Punitive Damages for Egregious Conduct
Sometimes, the conduct of the party causing harm is so bad – like being intentionally harmful or showing extreme recklessness – that the law seeks to do more than just compensate the victim. Punitive damages, also called exemplary damages, are awarded in these situations. Their purpose isn’t really about compensating the victim, but rather about punishing the wrongdoer and deterring others from similar behavior in the future. These are not awarded in every case; they are reserved for situations where the conduct was particularly offensive or malicious.
Punitive damages serve as a strong warning to others. They are a tool used when simple compensation isn’t enough to address the severity of the misconduct and its potential to harm others.
Specific Areas of Legal Liability
Beyond the general principles we’ve discussed, the law carves out specific areas where liability can arise. These often involve unique circumstances or relationships that warrant particular attention. Understanding these specialized fields helps clarify how legal responsibility plays out in everyday situations and complex disputes.
Nuisance and Property Interference
Nuisance law deals with situations where one person’s use of their property unreasonably interferes with another’s ability to use or enjoy their own property. It’s not about minor annoyances, but substantial and persistent disruptions. Think of a factory spewing toxic fumes that drift onto neighboring homes, or a business operating loud machinery late into the night. These aren’t just inconveniences; they can significantly impact health, safety, and the value of property.
There are two main types:
- Private Nuisance: This affects a specific individual or a limited number of people. For example, a neighbor constantly playing loud music at all hours could create a private nuisance.
- Public Nuisance: This impacts the community at large. Examples include blocking a public road, polluting a shared water source, or operating a business that creates widespread health hazards.
To win a nuisance case, a plaintiff usually has to show that the interference was substantial and unreasonable, and that it caused them harm.
Invasion of Privacy Claims
In our increasingly connected world, the concept of privacy has become a significant legal battleground. Invasion of privacy claims protect individuals from certain types of unwanted intrusion or disclosure. These claims aren’t about keeping secrets, but about controlling personal information and maintaining a reasonable expectation of solitude.
Common forms of invasion of privacy include:
- Intrusion Upon Seclusion: This involves intentionally intruding into someone’s private affairs or solitude in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Think of secretly recording someone in their home or peering into their windows.
- Public Disclosure of Private Facts: This occurs when private information about someone, which is not of legitimate public concern, is revealed and would be offensive to a reasonable person.
- False Light: This happens when someone is portrayed in a false and highly offensive way to the public, even if the information isn’t strictly defamatory. For instance, publishing a photo of someone with a caption suggesting they endorse a product they’ve never heard of.
- Appropriation of Name or Likeness: This involves using someone’s name or image for commercial benefit without their permission, like using a celebrity’s photo in an advertisement without paying them.
Contractual Liability and Breach
Contract law forms the backbone of many business and personal transactions. When parties enter into an agreement, they create legally binding obligations. Contractual liability arises when one party fails to fulfill their promises under the contract, leading to a breach.
A breach of contract can occur in several ways:
- Material Breach: This is a significant failure to perform a contract term, essentially depriving the other party of the benefit they expected.
- Minor Breach: This is a less serious violation that doesn’t fundamentally undermine the contract’s purpose.
- Anticipatory Breach: This happens when one party indicates, before the performance is due, that they will not fulfill their contractual obligations.
When a breach occurs, the non-breaching party is typically entitled to remedies, most commonly monetary damages, to compensate them for the losses suffered due to the breach. The goal is often to put the injured party in the position they would have been in had the contract been fully performed. The enforceability of contracts hinges on clear terms and mutual agreement.
Burden and Standards of Proof
When someone brings a legal claim, they can’t just say something happened and expect the court to believe them. There’s a whole process to figure out who has to prove what, and how convincing that proof needs to be. This is where the burden and standards of proof come into play.
Determining Who Must Prove a Case
Basically, the burden of proof is on the party who is making the claim. If you’re suing someone, it’s your job to show the court why you’re right. This is often referred to as the "plaintiff" in a civil case or the "prosecution" in a criminal case. They have to present evidence to support their allegations. The other side, the "defendant," then has the opportunity to present their own evidence to counter the claims. It’s not about who talks the loudest, but who can present a compelling case based on the facts.
Preponderance of the Evidence Standard
In most civil lawsuits, like personal injury cases or contract disputes, the standard of proof is called the "preponderance of the evidence." This means that the party with the burden of proof just needs to show that their claim is more likely true than not. Think of it like a scale: if the evidence tips even slightly in their favor, they’ve met the standard. It’s a lower bar than in criminal cases, reflecting the different consequences involved. For example, if you’re claiming someone owes you money for a damaged car, you just need to convince the judge or jury that it’s more probable than not that they caused the damage. This is a key concept in civil law and how disputes are resolved outside of the criminal justice system.
Higher Standards of Proof
While "preponderance of the evidence" is common, some civil cases require a higher level of proof. For instance, if you’re trying to prove fraud or seeking punitive damages (which are meant to punish bad behavior, not just compensate for losses), the standard might be "clear and convincing evidence." This means the evidence needs to be highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue. It’s a step up from a simple tipping of the scales. In criminal cases, the standard is the highest of all: "beyond a reasonable doubt." This means the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other logical explanation, based on the facts, except that the defendant committed the crime. It’s a very tough standard to meet, which is why acquittals happen even when there’s a lot of suspicion.
Here’s a quick look at the different standards:
| Case Type | Standard of Proof |
|---|---|
| Civil (most) | Preponderance of the Evidence |
| Civil (specific) | Clear and Convincing Evidence |
| Criminal | Beyond a Reasonable Doubt |
Understanding these standards is vital because they dictate how a case will be decided. It’s not just about presenting evidence, but presenting enough convincing evidence to meet the required legal threshold. This ensures fairness and prevents people from being wrongly held liable or convicted.
Wrapping Up Legal Responsibility
So, we’ve gone over a lot about legal liability and responsibility. It’s pretty clear that the law has many ways of figuring out who’s on the hook when something goes wrong. Whether it’s about a faulty product, a careless action, or even just owning a pet that causes trouble, there are rules in place. Understanding these different types of responsibility, like negligence or strict liability, is key for anyone trying to stay out of trouble or seeking fairness when they’ve been wronged. It’s a complex area, for sure, but knowing the basics can help you navigate things a bit better.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly is legal liability?
Legal liability is basically when someone is held responsible by law for causing harm or loss to another person. It means you could be required to fix the problem, usually by paying money or doing something specific.
How is civil liability different from criminal liability?
Civil liability deals with disagreements between people or groups, like if someone breaks a contract or causes an injury. The goal is to make the injured party whole. Criminal liability is about actions that are considered offenses against society as a whole, like theft or assault. The government prosecutes these cases, and the punishment can include jail time or fines.
What does ‘negligence’ mean in legal terms?
Negligence happens when someone doesn’t act with the level of care that a reasonable person would in a similar situation, and this carelessness causes harm to someone else. Think of it as being careless and hurting someone because of it.
Can you be held responsible for something you didn’t mean to do?
Yes, sometimes! This is called strict liability. In certain situations, like when selling a product that turns out to be dangerous, the seller or maker can be responsible for harm even if they weren’t careless or didn’t intend for it to happen.
What is vicarious liability?
Vicarious liability means one person or entity is held responsible for the actions of another. A common example is an employer being responsible for the mistakes or harmful actions of their employees if those actions happened while the employee was on the job.
What are some common defenses against a liability claim?
People can defend themselves in a few ways. For example, if you agreed to take on a certain risk, or if you acted to protect yourself or others from immediate danger (like self-defense), these could be valid defenses. Sometimes, specific laws might protect someone from being sued.
What kind of compensation can someone get if they win a liability case?
If someone wins a liability case, they can usually get ‘damages.’ These are meant to cover their losses, like medical bills or lost wages (economic damages). Sometimes, they can also get money for things like pain and suffering (non-economic damages). In rare, serious cases, they might get extra money to punish the wrongdoer.
Who has to prove that someone is liable?
Generally, the person bringing the lawsuit (the plaintiff) has the job of proving their case. They usually have to show that it’s more likely than not that the other party is responsible. This is called the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard.