The Current Trend of Allocating the Burden of Proof through Medical Malpractice Civil Action in the United States

In medical malpractice cases, factual issues are decided by a fact finder (either a jury or trial judge) through evidence provided by both parties in the process of deciding the burden of proof. After the plaintiff satisfies the prima facie case requirements, allocation of the burden of proof in a trial follows according to the rule of law. In ordinary situations, a plaintiff has the ultimate burden of persuasion in a trial, but with trials of medical malpractice, sometimes the rules for allocating the burden of proof differ under some circumstances. The issue of allocating the burden of proof in trials of medical malpractice cases is the focus of this article. Based upon the introductory material and for the purpose of this article, in the beginning, this paper provides a brief explanation of the general principle of allocation of the burden of proof in a trial of civil litigation in the US. Then, the idea and substantial content of the res ipsa loquitur principle related to trials of medical malpractice for allocation of the burden of proof in the US are introduced. In the last part of this article, a fairly recent case related to the res ipsa loquitur principle is discussed, and personal observations of future trends in dealing with the issue of allocating the burden of proof in medical malpractice litigation are made.