{"id":13078,"date":"2023-03-23T15:19:27","date_gmt":"2023-03-23T21:19:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.asbestosclaims.law\/?post_type=blog&p=13078"},"modified":"2023-03-29T18:01:39","modified_gmt":"2023-03-30T00:01:39","slug":"how-to-prove-asbestos-exposure","status":"publish","type":"blog","link":"https:\/\/www.asbestosclaims.law\/es\/asbestos-blog\/como-probar-la-exposicion-al-asbesto\/","title":{"rendered":"How To Prove Asbestos Exposure"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Plaintiffs in injury and other civil cases don\u2019t have to \u201cprove\u201d anything. Instead, they must establish key facts by a preponderance of the evidence<\/a>. This Legalese phrase means \u201cmore likely than not.\u201d That\u2019s a much lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof in criminal court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Assume Mike and Ike, who are both drunk, are in the same car one night. Their car rear-ends a parked, empty vehicle. Under those facts, it\u2019s almost impossible to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, which one was driving the car. However, in civil court, where the burden of proof is lower, either Mike or Ike could be responsible for the wreck.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, if Brenda worked in an old building that contained asbestos and she developed mesothelioma<\/a>, she doesn\u2019t have to \u201cprove\u201d how she got it. Instead, she must only show that it\u2019s more likely than not that she was exposed to asbestos in that old building. This procedure seems straightforward. However, as outlined below, establishing liability in civil court is much easier said than done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
If you may have been exposed to asbestos, speak with your healthcare provider about tests and screening to help detect the presence of asbestos fibers and <\/strong>asbestos-related diseases<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/pre>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
The Burden of Proof and the Burden of Persuasion<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
Primarily, it\u2019s difficult to establish liability because the victim\/plaintiff has the burden of proof as well as the burden of persuasion. That\u2019s quite a mouthful, so let\u2019s break it down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We hate to dump more Legalese on you, but a motion for summary judgment illustrates the difference between these two concepts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and <\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a judge must grant judgment for one side before trial if witness statements, medical reports, documents, and other \u201cmaterials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In other words, the plaintiff, who has the burden of proof, must produce evidence to support its key points. But, that\u2019s not enough to win the case. A jury must also side with the plaintiff over the defendant. That\u2019s the burden of persuasion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Part of the burden of persuasion is overcoming defenses, like the unforeseeable misuse defense in a defective product claim. Plaintiffs lose if they establish their cases but the defendant has a solid defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n