"Larry Smith" wrote:

"Might" have could mean a 1 in 3 chance, which
is insufficient to get the case to the jury.

I'm puzzled by this statement. As I understand it, the burden of proof for
civil cases is the balance of probabilities, so if there's better than a 1
in 2 chance that things are as the plaintiff claims, then his case is made.
But you appear to be saying that a similar test will be applied to establish
whether the case would even come before a jury, which seems a awfully high
hurdle for a civil case. I know that some criminal cases have to meet this
test in preliminary hearings, but that makes sense, as the burden of proof
in the case is much higher ie. beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought you
could only get a civil case struck out (and thereby prevent it coming before
the jury) if you could show that the case has no chance of succeeding even
if all the facts fall so as to favor the plaintiff? I'm not a lawyer, so I
could easily be 100% wrong here, but I'd welcome some clarification so I
might better understand the procedures involved.

--
Mike Granby, PP-ASEL,IA
Warrior N44578
http://www.mikeg.net/plane