"The burden of proof may be placed on the party who must prove the existence of a fact rather than on the party who must prove its nonexistence."
How later courts described this case
- "The burden of proof may be placed on the party who must prove the existence of a fact rather than on the party who must prove its nonexistence."
- "If the existence or nonexistence of a fact can be demonstrated by one party to a controversy much more easily than by the other party, the burden of proof may be placed on that party who "can discharge it most easily.”
- burden of proof may be placed on party who must prove existence of fact rather than on party who must prove its nonexistence
- the trier of fact is not required to accept uncontradicted testimony as true
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
Notwithstanding the interesting ramblings by the majority in the field which used to be the legal field of Workmen’s Compensation, but has now been changed by it to the field of human emotions and equities, it still ought to be the law in Workmen’s Compensation cases, as it is in the field of trespass and in other fields of the law, that the person who has the burden of proof to sustain his claim has to produce competent and adequate evidence to sustain his claim. This has been and should continue to be the law, even though the opposite party is in a better position to possess or acquire the essential facts or the necessary knowledge. I would cast upon the claimant the burden of proving his claim to total or partial disability, and if the latter, further proof that employment for a person with Ms Mnd of partial disability is not available to him. Any other standard or requirement or burden is founded upon emotion and not law, and makes a travesty of the law.
For these reasons, I would affirm the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the Superior Court.