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?
He's required to prove what the income from his dog would have been in the week it was sick, and had you not so inhumanely shaved its head, etc.