Inferences: How Much Evidence Can You Assume In An Injury Case?

We tend to believe that in court cases, and personal injury cases, that evidence has to be something that we know—something that someone sees or which is on video or in a picture. But that’s not really how evidence, or court cases work. When it comes to a lot of evidence, a court, and a  jury, are allowed to make what are known as inferences.

What is an Inference?

Inferences are assumptions, but they aren’t just assumptions. They are assumptions based on known facts, which allow us to come to a reasonable conclusion based on those facts. Many experts form opinions on inferences.

Accident reconstructionists work on inferences all the time. They did not witness the accident, and usually, have no video of the accident. But they take clues, like the damage to cars, the final resting place of cars or bodies, or skid marks on the roadway, to make very detailed and precise conclusions about what direction cars were travelling in, or how fast they were going.

Examples of Proper and Improper Inferences

We make inferences in our daily life as well, and juries are allowed to make them in trial.

If something fell on your head from above while you were shopping, injuring you, the jury can make the inference that someone from the store put that item up on that top shelf.

If a couch was laying in the middle of the roadway, and your car hit it, a jury could make an inference that the couch was, at one time, loaded onto a car or a vehicle of some type.

Improper Inference Stacking

What a jury often cannot legally do, is stack inferences. Think of stacking inferences, as making one assumption based on another.

So, the jury could infer that a couch in the road was at one time, on a vehicle. However, it could not automatically infer that the couch was negligently secured or that it was not tied down properly—while that may likely be what happened, the jury may need some extra proof, legally, because otherwise the jury would have to infer that the couch was on the truck, and then infer from that, that it wasn’t tied down properly—thus, stacking or compiling one inference upon another.

In the shelf example above, a jury could infer that someone from the store put the item on that top shelf. But it couldn’t infer, without more evidence, that the items were placed there improperly—that would be stacking one inference (the shelves were improperly stacked) with another (that the shelves were stacked by a store employee).

Know What You Can and Cannot Do in Trial

A good injury attorney should know what facts can legally be inferred by a jury, and what facts will need more tangible, direct evidence. Because although a lot of evidence may seem like “common sense,” there are strict evidentiary standards that must be met in court, before asking juries to just stack assumption on assumption.

Contact our Rhode Island injury lawyers at Robert E. Craven & Associates at 401-453-2700 today for help with your personal injury trial.