What is the burden of proof in a motor vehicle accident case?

19 It is useful to start with the burden of proof. It is upon the plaintiff to satisfy the court that it is more likely than not that the injuries she seeks compensation for were caused by the motor vehicle accident. However, in the words of Mr. Justice Sopinka in Snell v. Farrell (1990), 1990 CanLII 70 (SCC), 72 D.L.R. (4th) 289 (S.C.C.), at p. 301: The legal or ultimate burden remains with the plaintiff, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary adduced by the defendant, an inference of causation may be drawn, although positive or scientific proof of causation has not been adduced. If some evidence to the contrary is adduced by the defendant, the trial judge is entitled to take account of Lord Mansfield's famous precept. This is, I believe, what Lord Bridge had in mind in Wilsher when he referred to a 'robust and pragmatic approach to the ... facts' (p. 569).