LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Burden of Proof – Shifting of Burden in Civil Cases

This principle, consistent with earlier authorities, articulates the dynamic nature of evidential burden in civil litigation. Unlike criminal cases where the prosecution bears a static burden throughout, civil cases involve a fluid exchange of evidential burdens as the case unfolds. The initial burden rests on the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case by proving the essential elements of their cause of action on a balance of probabilities. Once the plaintiff discharges this initial burden by presenting credible evidence supporting each element, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant. The defendant must then respond by: (1) rebutting the plaintiff’s evidence to cast doubt on the prima facie case; (2) proving any affirmative defenses raised; or (3) providing alternative explanations for the evidence. If the defendant successfully rebuts the plaintiff’s case or raises credible defenses, the burden may shift back to the plaintiff to overcome the defense or provide additional supporting evidence. This shifting continues throughout trial as each side presents evidence. The principle recognizes several implications: (1) both parties bear responsibility for proving their contentions at different stages; (2) the party with the burden at any given point risks losing if they fail to discharge it; (3) final decision depends on where the burden rests at the conclusion of all evidence; (4) judges must carefully track burden shifts to properly evaluate whether parties have met their respective burdens. This dynamic approach reflects the adversarial nature of civil litigation where both parties actively participate in establishing facts. It differs fundamentally from criminal law’s static burden because civil cases involve competing claims between parties of equal procedural standing, rather than the state’s burden to overcome the presumption of innocence.