Another GA lawsuite

"Mike Granby" wrote in message
...
"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,

Correct. Proof by the greater weight of the evidence, or a preponderance of
the evidence, or by tipping the scales in favor of the plaintiff.

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.

Usually judges let even flimsy cases go to the jury but if the plaintiff is
playing with 33% of the marbles and the defendant has 67%, the judge will
step in and dismiss sooner or later. That's my experience, even though the
judge waits until ALL the evidence is in, or even until after a verdict for
the plaintiff.

The rule, at the end of the plaintiff's evidence and upon motion to dismiss
by the defendant, is that if the plaintiff has failed to show evidence of
each of the elements of his case, he is subject to dismissal. The court,
if it finds by considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff that the plaintiff has failed to establish he is entitled to
relief, may enter an order of dismissal against the plaintiff.

So let's assume that each of the plaintiff's witnesses testifies that X
could have occurred or might have occurred, instead of saying that it in
fact DID occur, you won't get THAT to the jury.

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?

The point is that a plaintiff must affirmatively produce evidence to support
his allegations sounding in tort against the FAA by competent evidence.
When a judge dismisses at the end of the plaintiff's evidence, and he does
it quite often in my neck of the woods, it's not only because the
plaintiff's case has suffered a fatal flaw in an element of proof but also
because his evidence preponderates against a verdict any jury might award
him.

There are a whole battery of motions a plaintiff must withstand before he
collects, and his case had better be better than "might have occurred" or he
ain't going to collect. This law isn't so much written in the books as it
is in the history of lawyering.

I'm not a lawyer,
I'm not either. I quit practicing some time ago. But I tried quite a few
jury cases in civil and criminal courts, and it's not like rolling dice or
showing that a state of facts may have existed.

so I
could easily be 100% wrong here, but I'd welcome some clarification so I
might better understand the procedures involved.
I believe you have a good grasp of what it takes to get past an order of
dismissal and get the case to the jury. Plus you have a good grasp of the
difference in the burden of proof in a civil case and a criminal case.
--
Mike Granby, PP-ASEL,IA
Warrior N44578
http://www.mikeg.net/plane