What Must The Jackson Family Prove In Its Wrongful Death Lawsuit?

The purpose of a civil lawsuit is to hold a person accountable to the victims or families of victims who were harmed. Civil lawsuits are brought by the wronged party, or, in wrongful death actions, by close family members. Those who bring civil lawsuits seek to obtain damages for medical costs, lost wages or income, pain and suffering, emotional distress or other damages. In wrongful death actions, such damages can include funeral costs, lost support if the deceased was financially supporting the family member, and loss of companionship.

In a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff also has the burden of proving his claim, just as a prosecutor does in a criminal case. However, the plaintiff's burden is not as heavy as the prosecutor's. The plaintiff must only show that the defendant was liable by a preponderance of the evidence, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that they just have to convince a jury that the version of the story the plaintiff is telling is more likely to be true than not true. The difference in standards explains why OJ Simpson was found innocent in a criminal trial but liable in a civil trial.

Proving Medical Malpractice

In the wrongful death action brought by Jackson's parents, the criminal conviction can provide conclusive proof that Murray was negligent. This means that the Jacksons won't need to prove the negligence element of their claim.
They do, however, need to prove the other elements of a wrongful death claim. Under a civil tort case, the first essential element that all plaintiffs must prove is that the defendant owed them a duty. In this case, the duty is based on the doctor-patient relationship, so the Jacksons will be basing their case on medical malpractice rules.

Under medical malpractice tort rules, plaintiffs have to prove:
ý That the doctor owed a duty (this element can be satisfied by virtue of the doctor-patient relationship)
ý That the duty was breached. Doctors are required under California law to exhibit the care and knowledge that a reasonable professional in their field and with their expertise would. This distinguishes medical malpractice cases from other negligence actions where a hypothetical reasonable person standard is used without regard to the defendant's personal knowledge.
ý That the breach was the direct/proximate cause of the resulting injury. In other words, this means proving the injury or death would not have happened if the defendant had been reasonably prudent.
ý That financial, mental, or physical damage occurred as a direct result of the injury.

In the wrongful death action against Murray, the negligence is established, and the conviction for involuntary manslaughter shows that negligence was responsible for Jackson's death. The major legal questions, therefore, will be the extent of the damage suffered by the family and the extent of the award against Murray that is appropriate.

Because the action against Murray is one for medical malpractice, it is subject to damage caps found in Cal. Civ. Code § 3333.2, which limits non-economic damages to a maximum of $250,000 in California whether the malpractice led to personal injury or to death, explains an attorney in the state.

By: Larry Drexel

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Larry Drexel is a Public Relations manager. To obtain free, informative books or articles he suggests visiting California personal injury attorney.