Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof.

1985 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothy K. Kagehiro ◽  
W. Clark Stanton
Keyword(s):  
Standards Of Proof

scholarly journals Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high

2021 ◽  
Vol 165 (3-4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth A. Lloyd ◽  
Naomi Oreskes ◽  
Sonia I. Seneviratne ◽  
Edward J. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Central Question ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Policy Context ◽  
Standards Of Proof

AbstractStandards of proof for attributing real world events/damage to global warming should be the same as in clinical or environmental lawsuits, argue Lloyd et al. The central question that we raise is effective communication. How can climate scientists best and effectively communicate their findings to crucial non-expert audiences, including public policy makers and civil society? To address this question, we look at the mismatch between what courts require and what climate scientists are setting as a bar of proof. Our first point is that scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence, in comparison with the level of evidence required in a legal, regulatory, or public policy context. Our second point is to recommend that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommend more prominently the use of the category “more likely than not” as a level of proof in their reports, as this corresponds to the standard of proof most frequently required in civil court rooms. This has also implications for public policy and the public communication of climate evidence.

scholarly journals Error Costs, Legal Standards of Proof, and Statistical Significance

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle M. Burtis ◽  
Jonah B. Gelbach ◽  
Bruce H. Kobayashi
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Error Costs

Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation

1999 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Redmayne
Keyword(s):  
Civil Litigation ◽  
Standards Of Proof

scholarly journals Standards of Proof and Civil Litigation: A Game-Theoretic Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Guerra ◽  
Barbara Luppi ◽  
Francesco Parisi
Keyword(s):  
Critical Role ◽  
Policy Instrument ◽  
Civil Litigation ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Game Theoretic Analysis ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Game Theoretic ◽  
Truth Finding ◽  
Selection Of

AbstractIn litigation models, the parties’ probability to succeed in a lawsuit hinge upon the merits of the parties’ claims and their litigation efforts. In this paper we extend this framework to consider an important procedural aspect of the legal system: the standard of proof. We recast the conventional litigation model to consider how alternative standards of proof affect litigation choices. We analyze the interrelation between different standards of proof, the effectiveness of the parties’ efforts, and the merits of the case. We study how these factors jointly affect the parties’ litigation expenditures, the selection of cases brought to the courts, pretrial bargain solutions and preemptive strategies. Our results show that standards of proof are not only instrumental to balancing the competing goals of access to justice and judicial truth-finding, but they also play a critical role in affecting parties’ litigation investments and settlement choices, and in sorting the mix of cases that will actually be filed and defended in courts. The understanding of the sorting effect of standards of proof sheds light on their role as a policy instrument in civil litigation.

scholarly journals The Standards of Proof in Medical Malpractice Cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-196
Author(s):  
Nina Cek
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Medical Error ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Standards Of Proof ◽  
Evaluation Of Evidence ◽  
Procedural Aspect ◽  
The Eu

The article examines the procedural aspect of medical malpractice cases. It focuses on the differences in proof standards by first explaining the characteristics of the Slovenian legal system and then comparing it with German and English legal systems. The author sheds light on the EU court's approach on the question of the responsibility of the manufacturer for the product (vaccine) and suggests the direction to use a broader framework for the evaluation of evidence and presumptions. Given the disclosed problems of proving through a medical expert's help, the article emphasizes the importance of respect for human rights in civil proceedings. Particular emphasis is also placed on no-fault systems. The question is raised of how introducing such a system into the Slovenian legal system would affect the perceived problem of proving a medical error and informed consent omission.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document