Under civil law, how is the burden of proof characterized?

In civil law, the burden of proof is characterized as "preponderance of the evidence." This standard requires that a party must demonstrate that its claims are more likely true than not true, which means that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claims are valid. This lower threshold reflects the nature of civil proceedings, where the focus is often on compensation or the resolution of disputes rather than punitive measures.

The rationale behind this standard is grounded in the idea that civil cases generally involve private rights and interests, where outcomes can have significant but different types of impacts compared to criminal cases. In civil cases, the objective is typically to restore or provide justice to an individual rather than to punish a wrongdoer. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence allows for a fair resolution based on a balance of probabilities, acknowledging that certainty is rarely achievable.

In contrast, the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the benchmark used in criminal law, where the stakes are much higher, involving potential incarceration and significant penalties. The other options, such as "clear and convincing evidence" and "substantial evidence," represent varying standards of proof used in specific legal contexts but do not correctly characterize the general burden of proof in civil law.