Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Litigation

Michigan Law Review

Journal

Burden of proof

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Evidence

Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr. Jan 2007

Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synthesizing three decades of jury research. Contrary to popular belief the data show that juries consistently sympathize more with doctors who are sued than with patients who sue them. Physicians win roughly half of the cases that expert reviewers believe physicians should lose and nearly all of the cases that experts feel physicians should win. Defendants and their hired experts, it turns out, are more successful than plaintiffs and their hired experts at persuading juries to reach verdicts contrary to the opinions of independent reviewers.


Negligence-Proof Of Causation, Walter Dean Feb 1950

Negligence-Proof Of Causation, Walter Dean

Michigan Law Review

Decedent, a passenger on defendant's railroad was bound for X Terminal. The car doors were open and a trainman called out, "X Terminal, next," but the train stopped in the dark at point Y before reaching the announced destination to allow another train to pass. Decedent's body was found near point Y. Suit was brought by decedent's widow under the state "wrongful death" statutes. The lower court held that the plaintiff's failure to show that decedent left the train at point Y was a fatal gap in the causal chain, and gave judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the …


Evidence - Office Custom To Prove Fact Of Mailing, R. J. Nordstrom S.Ed. Jan 1949

Evidence - Office Custom To Prove Fact Of Mailing, R. J. Nordstrom S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff agreed to purchase land from defendant by a contract in which it was stipulated that the performance of the mechanics of purchase would be completed through a third party, Webster. Plaintiff deposited the purchase money with Webster with instructions to deliver it to defendant only after he (Webster) had, inter alia, procured a policy of title insurance. Webster absconded with the funds. In a suit to determine the incidence of loss, plaintiff sought to prove that Webster had procured the policy before he absconded and therefore held the purchase money as agent for defendant. The proof that plaintiff …