Previous
Wrongful Death Lawsuit Evidence Rules Differ
Added: (Sat Sep 27 2008)
It's not often a plaintiff gets the chance to take two kicks at the can when it comes to determining liability in a wrongful death lawsuit. If a case has been adjudicated in the criminal courts and the defendant found innocent, the second crack at the offender may come in the form of a civil lawsuit.
The one scenario that comes to mind of a situation like this is the OJ Simpson case from 1997 when the Goldman family sued Simpson for the wrongful death of their son Ronald, and won.
A wrongful death claim (usually filed under a Wrongful Death Statute) may be filed against anyone deemed responsible for another person's death. This would include accidental deaths caused by medical malpractice, dangerous drugs, flawed products, murderers and owners of unsafe land etc.
People don't understand this area of law all that well, as they don't get why they should file a wrongful death suit if it happens to be a deliberate killing. This is where the rules of evidence come into play.
Criminal courts need proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil courts only need the preponderance of evidence pointing to the defendant. When a person is declared innocent in criminal court, and the family wishes to see justice done, a wrongful death lawsuit provides the survivors a chance to do that.
In most cases, a wrongful death suit is filed against people who have accidentally caused a death through negligence in some form or another. Filing a suit like this has to do with recovery of lost financial support from the deceased. While many think it's not right that suits like these are filed, it's necessary to keep the surviving family financially stable.
Wrongful death cases are often a wake up call to the manufacturers, companies or organizations, putting them on notice to place people's safety first. Unfortunately there are companies who choose to cut corners, putting others at risk of grave injury or death.
To learn more, visit http://www.webbdorazio.com.