Looking up...
A legal standard where a claim is accepted if it is more likely than not to be true.
In civil cases, the burden of proof is typically on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
Civil cases require proving that something is more than 50% likely to be true.
The court found the defendant liable on the balance of probabilities, despite some lingering doubts.
The defendant was held responsible because the evidence suggested their fault was more probable than not.
This standard is lower than 'beyond reasonable doubt' used in criminal cases. It means the event or fact is more likely to have occurred than not.
Think of 'balance of probabilities' as a scale where the evidence tips slightly in favor of one side (51% vs. 49%). This is sufficient to decide a civil case.
This phrase is almost exclusively used in legal contexts. Do not use it metaphorically in everyday conversation.
The phrase combines 'balance' (from Latin *bilanx*, meaning 'having two scales') with 'probabilities' (from Latin *probabilitas*, meaning 'likelihood'). The legal concept dates back to English common law, where it emerged as a way to distinguish between different burdens of proof in civil versus criminal cases.
Primarily used in civil law jurisdictions (e.g., UK, Canada, Australia) and some common law systems. Avoid using this phrase in contexts outside legal or formal discussions, as it may confuse non-specialists.