In tort law, what is the standard of proof required to win a case?

In tort law, the standard of proof required to win a case is known as "preponderance of the evidence." This standard means that one party must present evidence that demonstrates that it is more likely than not that their claims are true. In other words, the evidence must show that there is a greater than 50% chance that the assertions made by the plaintiff are valid.

This standard is less stringent than "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the standard used in criminal cases. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard requires a much higher level of certainty before a party can be found liable. In civil cases, which tort law is a part of, the preponderance of the evidence allows for a balance of probabilities, recognizing that plaintiffs must only convince the court that their version of events is more credible than that of the defendant.

"Clear and convincing evidence" is another standard that sits between preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is used in specific civil cases rather than general tort cases. "Substantial evidence" is often used in administrative or regulatory contexts, rather than in the civil tort system. Thus, preponderance of the evidence is the correct standard for tort law cases.