I have a question regarding "preponderance of evidence". I am currently involved in a civil case, which has many claims or "torts" to it. I am going to make up a scenario to try and lay everything out.
So I am being sued in a civil case. Lets say a person I know owns a prize show dog named "lassie". This dog just happens to have my contact information on a collar tag that the dog is wearing because I original purchased the dog for my old friend, but I used his money to purchase the dog. I was good friends with this person until a point came when they did not want to be my friend. So after I am no longer friends with this person, I purchase my own dog, but give it a similar name of "lassiee". I don't intend to used the dog for show (or to make any money off of). Several months later while I am walking down the street I see the prize show dog "lassie" walking down the street. I approach the dog and notice that my contact information is still on the dogs collar. So I take it upon myself to update the dog collar information. I do not put down that the dog belongs to Joe Blow or Bill Clinton, I put down my old friends contact information.
So now, I get a affidavit from my old friend that lists out several things...
1. I bought my own dog and gave it a name one letter off from his dog, for the apparent purpose of interfering with his dog show capabilities (tort I guess).
2. I changed the contact information on his dog collar.
3. I gave his dog a virus through some bad dog food, causing the dog to become sick, thus being unable to perform in dog shows for a week.
4. I shaved part of his dogs head to make it look ugly.
5. I harassed "lassie" by having that one contact with the dog on the street.
6. I tell others that I own a prize show dog named "lassiee".
7. I have been attempting to steal lassie.
Ok, so I'm getting to my question. In this civil case with "preponderance of the evidence", what can be used? I know that in a civil case, damages must be proved. So I admit to number 1 and 2. I did purchase my own dog and gave it a name one letter off, but never used the dog to make money off of or represented it as my old friends dog. And I updated the contact information on the dogs collar.
But can they just put anything they want into an affidavit? Since I admit to the first two things, does that swing the favor towards the plaintiff? Obviously the most damages in a case like this would be from the dog getting a virus and getting sick. So does the lawyer from my old friend have to prove each allegation, or does it mean that since I did one or two things, I'm guilty of everything they claim?
So I am being sued in a civil case. Lets say a person I know owns a prize show dog named "lassie". This dog just happens to have my contact information on a collar tag that the dog is wearing because I original purchased the dog for my old friend, but I used his money to purchase the dog. I was good friends with this person until a point came when they did not want to be my friend. So after I am no longer friends with this person, I purchase my own dog, but give it a similar name of "lassiee". I don't intend to used the dog for show (or to make any money off of). Several months later while I am walking down the street I see the prize show dog "lassie" walking down the street. I approach the dog and notice that my contact information is still on the dogs collar. So I take it upon myself to update the dog collar information. I do not put down that the dog belongs to Joe Blow or Bill Clinton, I put down my old friends contact information.
So now, I get a affidavit from my old friend that lists out several things...
1. I bought my own dog and gave it a name one letter off from his dog, for the apparent purpose of interfering with his dog show capabilities (tort I guess).
2. I changed the contact information on his dog collar.
3. I gave his dog a virus through some bad dog food, causing the dog to become sick, thus being unable to perform in dog shows for a week.
4. I shaved part of his dogs head to make it look ugly.
5. I harassed "lassie" by having that one contact with the dog on the street.
6. I tell others that I own a prize show dog named "lassiee".
7. I have been attempting to steal lassie.
Ok, so I'm getting to my question. In this civil case with "preponderance of the evidence", what can be used? I know that in a civil case, damages must be proved. So I admit to number 1 and 2. I did purchase my own dog and gave it a name one letter off, but never used the dog to make money off of or represented it as my old friends dog. And I updated the contact information on the dogs collar.
But can they just put anything they want into an affidavit? Since I admit to the first two things, does that swing the favor towards the plaintiff? Obviously the most damages in a case like this would be from the dog getting a virus and getting sick. So does the lawyer from my old friend have to prove each allegation, or does it mean that since I did one or two things, I'm guilty of everything they claim?