How a personal injury claim is proved, and how it differs from a criminal case
Introduction
A personal injury claim is a civil action. It is brought by the injured person, not the State; its purpose is compensation, not punishment; and it is decided on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. Those differences affect how the claim is prepared, what must be proved and what happens when the same event has also been the subject of a criminal investigation.
This guide explains the civil standard of proof and what it means in practice for an injured person.
The Law
In a civil action the plaintiff bears the burden of proving each element of the claim: that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the duty was breached, that the breach caused the injury, and the extent of the loss. The standard is the balance of probabilities. The court asks whether, on the evidence, each proposition is more likely than not to be true. If the evidence is evenly balanced, the plaintiff fails.
The standard does not vary with the seriousness of the allegation, but the courts require cogent evidence before finding that a serious wrong occurred. A civil court may find that an assault took place although the alleged assailant was acquitted, or never prosecuted, because the criminal standard is higher and the criminal process may have failed for reasons unrelated to what actually happened. The High Court’s award of damages in a civil action arising from an alleged sexual assault, following a jury verdict, illustrated the point in a case that attracted wide public attention.
Civil actions are generally tried by a judge alone. Juries remain in the High Court for defamation and for certain claims for assault, but personal injury actions arising from negligence are decided by a judge, who gives a reasoned judgment. The judge assesses the credibility of witnesses, weighs expert evidence and applies the law, and the reasons given are the basis for any appeal.
The plaintiff’s burden is not discharged by belief. The High Court, applying Vesey v Bus Éireann, has held that where a plaintiff’s own conduct has made it impossible to say which of several events caused an injury, the court will not speculate and the claim fails. Section 26 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 goes further: a plaintiff who knowingly gives false or misleading evidence in any material respect has the claim dismissed.
Practical Steps
The balance of probabilities is met by evidence, and the plaintiff controls most of it. Contemporaneous records carry the most weight: the medical note made on the day, the report made to the employer or occupier, the photograph taken at the scene. Recollection years later carries less, and inconsistent recollection carries least of all.
Independent evidence is more persuasive than the plaintiff’s own. A witness who is not a family member, CCTV footage, an engineer’s report, or the defendant’s own records obtained on discovery will ordinarily decide a disputed question of fact.
Causation is often the contested element. Where the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition or a prior accident, the medical evidence must address what the index accident added, and the plaintiff must have told the doctors about the history so that they can do so. The High Court in Daly v Ryans Investments Ltd [2024] IEHC 703 dismissed a claim where the plaintiff’s records did not connect her injury to the accident and she chose not to call her treating doctors.
Where the accident has also been investigated by An Garda Síochána or the Health and Safety Authority, the outcome of that process does not determine the civil claim. A prosecution that is not brought, or fails, does not prevent a civil claim from succeeding; a conviction is admissible evidence but does not relieve the plaintiff of proving loss.
Takeaway
The civil standard is lower than the criminal standard, but it is not low. It requires the plaintiff to prove, with evidence a court can weigh, that the defendant was at fault and that the fault caused the injury.
The practical consequence is that a claim is decided by its record. An injured person who reports, photographs, documents and discloses builds a record that tips the balance; one who relies on what they believe happened, without more, leaves the balance where it started.
Further information
This article was prepared for informational purposes only. For further advice, please email workclaim@crushell.ie or contact the offices of Crushell & Co Solicitors.
About Crushell & Co
Crushell & Co is a specialist firm advising on the application of law in the Irish workplace.
Our Dublin-based solicitors have particular expertise in workplace injury litigation, regularly acting on behalf of employees who have suffered injuries arising from unsafe systems of work, inadequate training, or failures in workplace safety procedures.
We understand that a workplace injury can have serious consequences for an individual’s health, livelihood, and financial security. We work closely with our clients to identify the root causes of workplace accidents, gather the necessary evidence, and advance strong, well-supported claims for compensation.
We are experienced in pursuing workplace injury claims through the Courts and achieving meaningful outcomes for injured workers, while providing clear and practical guidance at every stage of the process.
We translate complex legal issues into practical legal options, adapting our strategy to meet each client’s specific circumstances and objectives.
Connect: @CrushellLaw or www.crushell.ie
