The Differences Between a ruling of Liability in Civil Law and a ruling of Guilty in Criminal Law

[Dante]

There is an automobile accident on a city street that involves a driver of an automobile and a bicyclist. There is an argument over who had the right of way. The bicyclist takes the driver to court. In the end, the court holds the driver of the automobile liable for injuring the bicyclist. The driver is ordered to pay damages.

Is the driver guilty of hitting the bicyclist?

 

[Dante]

The civil vs the criminal will most certainly come up here.

 

[Dante]

The term "guilt" has a few meanings.

 

[BackAgain]

Another enjoyable display of legal ignorance by the Dainty.

While trying to make a “point,” he remains stuck on pointless.

 

[Dante]

Another enjoyable display of legal ignorance by the Dainty.

While trying to make a “point,” he remains stuck on pointless.

A personal attack sans any relevance to the OP?

 

[BackAgain]

A personal attack sans any relevance to the OP?

No

It’s — first — not an attack.

And it does have relevance to your ridiculous op. The relevance undoubtedly eludes you.

Your silly OP vainly attempted to make a “point.” Don’t think yourself clever. It was plodding and obvious. But as usual, it was a display of ignorance.

Suffice it to say, a civil jury determining liability is not the equivalent of a criminal jury determining a defendant’s guilt of a crime.

And while it is trivially true that the word “guilt” can harbor various meanings, it doesn’t go as far as you’d like to pretend.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

There is an automobile accident on a city street that involves a driver of an automobile and a bicyclist. There is an argument over who had the right of way. The bicyclist takes the driver to court. In the end, the court holds the driver of the automobile liable for injuring the bicyclist. The driver is ordered to pay damages.

Is the driver guilty of hitting the bicyclist?

Edited at 1924 hrs on 4/24/2024:

Guilty: culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing.

In the broadest, non-legal sense, especially if a court has already found him to be liable, you could say that he is/was "guilty" of "hitting" the bicyclist with his motor vehicle. But that is not equivalent to being found guilty of a criminal offense in a court of law.

Had the driver been impaired however, in violation of any of the criminal codes, then he could have quite possibly been charged, tried and convicted in criminal court. Criminal courts find defendants either guilty or not guilty, while civil courts find the defendants liable or not of the harm alleged.

Edit: I forgot one of the most important parts. Being found guilty in a criminal court can put you at risk of losing your freedom or your life depending what you're charged with, while a finding of liability in a civil case makes you financially liable to the plaintiff (the person who brought the lawsuit against you). So being found guilty in a criminal case - possible jail time or execution, while civil cases - money payable to the plaintiff.

Does that help?

 

[Concerned American]

No

It’s — first — not an attack.

And it does have relevance to your ridiculous op. The relevance undoubtedly eludes you.

Your silly OP vainly attempted to make a “point.” Don’t think yourself clever. It was plodding and obvious. But as usual, it was a display of ignorance.

Suffice it to say, a civil jury determining liability is not the equivalent of a criminal jury determining a defendant’s guilt of a crime.

And while it is trivially true that the word “guilt” can harbor various meanings, it doesn’t go as far as you’d like to pretend.

Standard of proof is different and more strict in a criminal trial as well.

 

[BackAgain]

Standard of proof is different and more strict in a criminal trial as well.

Absolutely true.

 

[Dante]

Suffice it to say, a civil jury determining liability is not the equivalent of a criminal jury determining a defendant’s guilt of a crime.

That is not what I claim.

 

[Dante]

In the broadest, non-legal sense, especially if a court has already found him to be liable, you could say that he is/was "guilty" of "hitting" the bicyclist with his motor vehicle. But that is not equivalent to being found guilty of a criminal offense in a court of law.

I stated as much.

 

[Dante]

Standard of proof is different and more strict in a criminal trial as well.

Yes it is. Now would you consider (you're not a judge or on a jury) the driver guilty of hitting the bicyclist?

 

[BackAgain]

That is not what I claim.

Good boy.

But frankly, conversations proceed better when you clearly state (if you’re capable of it) what lever it is you do claim.

Clearly. Support those things if you’re able. You know. Links and so forth.

Then cobble them together in a framework whereby you actually make an “argument.”

Go.

 

[Dante]

Absolutely true.

D'Oh!

 

[BackAgain]

D'Oh!

Is it possible that our little troll, the dainty, is learning something?

Yep. One standard of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That’s for criminal cases, the dainty.

The preponderance of the evidence is the civil standard and is much lower.

Have you considered getting a remedial education? You should.

 

[Concerned American]

Yes it is. Now would you consider (you're not a judge or on a jury) the driver guilty of hitting the bicyclist?

I consider it totally irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.

 

[Robert W]

There is an automobile accident on a city street that involves a driver of an automobile and a bicyclist. There is an argument over who had the right of way. The bicyclist takes the driver to court. In the end, the court holds the driver of the automobile liable for injuring the bicyclist. The driver is ordered to pay damages.

Is the driver guilty of hitting the bicyclist?

This is a true story since it happened to me. The full story is I stopped at the Red light. The light turned Green and as soon as I moved, the Bicycle ran the red light and I ended up hitting him. I was concerned he was hurt but he turned me down taking him to see a doctor at a nearby hospital. Later he shows up at my office with legal papers. The street crossing was not at a 90 degrees. And the sidewalk he was on had a high fence. I had no clue he would run a red light. My insurance paid him after the judge said I was guilty. I definitely was in the right to follow the green light and he was hidden from sight.

 

[Dante]

Good boy.

But frankly, conversations proceed better when you clearly state (if you’re capable of it) what lever it is you do claim.

Clearly. Support those things if you’re able. You know. Links and so forth.

Then cobble them together in a framework whereby you actually make an “argument.”

Go.

"Whether Hunter is guilty of his fucking tax crimes (as alleged) is not yet established via a trial. So, in the eyes of the law, he is presumed innocent. But he might very well (in reality) be as guilty as fuck."

Hunter Biden Not Guilty!

Carelessly deleted 30,000 emails Not a crime in any way. Nice lane change. Not really. AM radio has really done a number on you. Literally every word out of your mouth about this is wrong.

www.usmessageboard.com

"Basement Biden was hiding and the media gave him a free ride. There has never been a campaign ever where a candidate failed to campaign---until this one. Biden is guilty and you know it! And no--he will NEVER be my president or anyone elses, Piglosi and Kameltoe will see to that. Moron."

How correct was Fauci's predictions on the Kung Flu?

Pretty cool gig when you can just keep changing your story and the media treats you like the Oracle of Wisdom. Yes Its called adapting to the latest findings about an unknown disease And yet you think Trump shoulda got everything right.:laughing0301: He should have attempted to give a shit...

www.usmessageboard.com

"Reported on MSN, I am amazed. Jay Inslee ought to take some of those Guard troops and state troopers who are protecting the capitol from a non-threat and support the tax-paying constituents. The entire democrat party is guilty of insurgency." - Concerned American

 

[Dante]

I consider it totally irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.

Irrelevant to the OP?

There is an automobile accident on a city street that involves a driver of an automobile and a bicyclist. There is an argument over who had the right of way. The bicyclist takes the driver to court. In the end, the court holds the driver of the automobile liable for injuring the bicyclist. The driver is ordered to pay damages.

Is the driver guilty of hitting the bicyclist?

 

[BackAgain]

"Whether Hunter is guilty of his fucking tax crimes (as alleged) is not yet established via a trial. So, in the eyes of the law, he is presumed innocent. But he might very well (in reality) be as guilty as fuck."

Hunter Biden Not Guilty!

Carelessly deleted 30,000 emails Not a crime in any way. Nice lane change. Not really. AM radio has really done a number on you. Literally every word out of your mouth about this is wrong.

www.usmessageboard.com

"Basement Biden was hiding and the media gave him a free ride. There has never been a campaign ever where a candidate failed to campaign---until this one. Biden is guilty and you know it! And no--he will NEVER be my president or anyone elses, Piglosi and Kameltoe will see to that. Moron."

How correct was Fauci's predictions on the Kung Flu?

Pretty cool gig when you can just keep changing your story and the media treats you like the Oracle of Wisdom. Yes Its called adapting to the latest findings about an unknown disease And yet you think Trump shoulda got everything right.:laughing0301: He should have attempted to give a shit...

www.usmessageboard.com

"Reported on MSN, I am amazed. Jay Inslee ought to take some of those Guard troops and state troopers who are protecting the capitol from a non-threat and support the tax-paying constituents. The entire democrat party is guilty of insurgency." - Concerned American

Thanks for your typically off topic posting miasma.