Exactly. A “classic” civil trial would be Bob suing Ted because Ted’s goat ate Bob’s cucumbers that Bob was going to sell at the market, and Bob thinks Ted should compensate him.
So the case begins- it turns out that Ted’s goat pen fencing is not awesome, but Bob left the gate open to his garden. So the judge (and maybe jury) decides that Ted is only 50% liable for the value of the cucumbers, since Bob’s action of leaving the gate open makes him partially responsible. Now had Ted deliberately opened the gate to let his goat in, they might find Ted 100% liable, AND tacked on punitive damages because he deliberately caused the event.
There’s no verdict or admission of guilt or innocence involved- it’s just a determination of if Ted owes Bob for the cucumbers, and if so, how much.
I assume the distinction is between the British adversarial system, which seems to have rooted in the Empire and North America - vs. the Napoleonic inquisitorial system which I assume has spread to most of continental Europe and their colonies?
In the British system, criminal cases are offenses against the crown. Any damages resulting are a separate dispute between the damaged party and those causing the loss. Criminal conviction just makes it easier to prove liability. (And as mentioned, in recent years many locales have added restitution as an option with a criminal sentencing, although AFAIK it has always been an option for the judge.)
not sure what the logic is for the Napoleonic system.
Yes, and if Ted smashed the gate to smithereens and drove over the fence in his 4WD, he’d be looking at criminal charges for criminal damage and not just having to answer to Bob for his actions.
To carry on that hypothetical, if Bob comes home and finds his fence in ruins and Ted’s 4WD in his goat pen, Ted might be charged with criminal damage. He might have a defence to the criminal charge in that he drove over the fence without malice, but he’s still liable to Bob civilly to make good the damage he caused. He can be “not guilty” of a criminal charge, but liable to pay damages civilly.
That is a good point - I believe for serious criminal offenses in norway, the civil liability standard is higher than mere 50,1% - more like 75% certainty - but still, I see the point.
Although in the U.S. many laws allow the government to take civil action against a person (individual or corporation) who has violated that law. The result (if the government wins the case) can be fines or ordering the person to do things to comply with the law, but only a criminal court case can result in jail time. (For instance, I believe in most places a parking ticket is not a criminal charge, but a civil one.)
So, for the reason for different burdens of proof, a more fundamental answer might be that, while the power of the government compared to a person is a concern, the real distinction is the difference between a fine and losing personal freedom, with the second being so much more serious a consequence that more proof is needed.
English courts do not like punitive damages, and will rarely award them. Damages are supposed to be compensatory only - to put you back in the position you were in before the tort occurred.
Yes, that’s certainly the highest (loss of personal freedom), but a substantial financial penalty and the serious consequences of a successful action by a government entity can also dictate that there needs to be a high degree of certainty before a finding in those proceedings (as in cases claiming exemplary damages). I was just trying to explain (not very well) why it’s “fair” for a person to be held liable to compensate somebody for the harm they caused to somebody affected by their actions, but for there not to have been enough evidence to convict criminally.
U.S. courts don’t love them either. The standards are high, the claims are often dismissed on summary judgment, and the Supreme Court has required strict scrutiny whenever a jury awards them. The Court also invented limits on the amounts.
They are useful, however, as sometimes it’s the only thing to get the corporation’s attention.
Unusual in an system derived from English law – so Malaysia, Aus, US etc. Which most of Europe is not. The question then remains if would be usual in roman-Law countries (France etc).