What is the standard of proof in a defective drug injury claim?

The standard of proof in a defective drug injury claim varies from state to state. In California, the standard of proof is circumstantial evidence. This means that it is not necessary to prove that the drug was defective, but rather to show that the drug caused the injury or illness. It is possible to prove that a drug was defective by demonstrating that it was improperly manufactured or contains an unsafe ingredient, but this type of proof is difficult to obtain. Circumstantial evidence is often used to prove that a drug caused an injury or illness. This type of evidence includes the onset of the injury or illness shortly after the drug was taken, the absence of other possible causes of the injury or illness, and whether the drug had known side effects that might have caused the injury or illness. In order for a claim to be successful, there must be sufficient evidence to suggest that the drug caused the injury or illness. In addition to circumstantial evidence, the plaintiff may also present expert testimony from medical professionals to establish that the drug caused the injury or illness. Expert testimony is generally considered to be the most persuasive type of evidence and usually carries the most weight with a jury. In general, the standard of proof in a defective drug injury claim in California is circumstantial evidence. This means that the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to suggest that the drug caused the injury or illness. The plaintiff may present expert testimony to support their case as well. Ultimately, a jury will decide whether the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to prove their claim.

What is the standard of proof in a defective drug injury claim?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts