What is the burden of proving contributory negligence against a defendant in a motor vehicle accident?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Smith v. H. E. Anning Co., 156 Cal.App.2d 842, 320 P.2d 42 (Cal. App. 1958):
Howard v. Worthington, 50 Cal.App. 556, 195 P. 709, is a somewhat similar case. In that case the appellate court found four erroneous instructions. The trial court had correctly instructed that the burden was on defendant to prove contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence, but it also instructed: 'In order, therefore, to find a verdict for the plaintiff, you must not only find from a preponderance of all the evidence that the defendant was negligent, but also that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff; and you must further find that the evidence shows, by a preponderance thereof, that the plaintiff was not guilty of negligence, however slight, contributing proximately thereto; otherwise, your verdict should be for the defendant.' 50 Cal.App. at page 559, 195 P. at page 710.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
