Can You Sue Over A Physical Attack Even If There Wasn't A Criminal Case?

Were you the victim of a physical attack? You probably thought that the person who attacked you would be charged with the crime, convicted and punished. But not everybody who commits a crime gets convicted (or even charged). How, then, can you get any justice for your injuries and suffering? When the criminal courts fail you, you can turn to the civil courts instead. 

What's The Difference Between Criminal And Civil Court?

Criminal courts are concerned with protecting the interests of the state, or society in general. Society wants to punish people who are violent and given to attacking other people, as a way of controlling them and discouraging others from acting the same way.

Criminal courts can send someone to jail as part of his or her punishment. They can also impose financial penalties, but unless they are considered restitution, the fines are paid to the state, not the victims.

Civil courts, on the other hand, exist to give individuals a way to solve their personal disputes with each other. Civil courts can't send someone to jail for what he or she did, but they can impose heavy financial penalties. The money collected from a civil case is paid to the victims, not the state.

Can You Win In Civil Court Even If The Criminal Case Failed?

Many people think that you can't win a civil case if the criminal case didn't result in a conviction. That's far from the truth, however, because the standard of proof required to win the case is very different. 

When someone is accused of assault or some other action in criminal court, the prosecutor has to provide proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" of that person's guilt in order to secure a conviction.

Prosecutors often struggle with a lack of evidence, conflicting witness statements, or other problems with evidence that make it hard to win (or sometimes even pursue) a criminal case. The standard of proof is simply too high to meet. 

However, if you take your attacker to civil court, the standard of proof is lower. In a civil trial, the plaintiff (usually the injured person) only has to prove his or her claim by a "preponderance of the evidence." 

Essentially, you have to present enough evidence to convince the court that events unfolded the way that you say that they did and that the other person is at least 51% likely to be guilty. You then ask the court to impose financial penalties, in the form of damages, to compensate you for your injuries.

There are also different rules about what evidence can be used in court - sometimes evidence that can't be allowed in a criminal case can be used in a civil one, making it easier to win.

The reason the standards of proof are so different is simply that the stakes are a lot higher when someone is involved in a criminal case. His or her freedom and future rights to do things like vote, own a gun, or move around without restriction, are at issue. A civil case only concerns itself with how to balance the scales of justice on a purely financial level.

It can be disheartening to think that someone who attacked and injured you isn't going to be punished for his or her actions. Don't allow yourself to believe, however, that you can't pursue a civil case to recover for your injuries - whether or not the criminal case goes forward. For more information, contact Marcus & Mack or a similar firm.