Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike S.  Ian I belive the burden of proof would be on Glenn. To proove that Roush did indeed damage the car etc. The burden of proof is on the accuser not the defendant. They can claim the car was already dammaged when they got it. I hope he has a lot of pictures & witnesses that the car was in prime condition when shipped & recieved. The defendant doesn't have to do anything to PROOVE his innocence under our system. You are presumed innocent untill PROVEN guilty. Roush so far has pleaded innocent/not guilty. But on a libal suit, after a person has already spread the "story" all over the internet, has already hung himself. All they need do is print out the evidence. This is my understanding of such things.
Mike S |
I was referring to the libel issue. In that case, the roles are reversed. Roush is the accuser and Glenn is the defendant. So, indeed, Roush has to prove that Glenn's statements are false. The only way to do that is to prove that a Roush employee did not wreck the car.
There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. In the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.
This is a separate issue from Glenn proving Roush is responsible for the damages to his car in an effort to gain compensation. While the cases are linked, and the proceedings and judgment of one case can be used in the other, if Glenn files suit regarding the damages, and Roush files suit over libel, the cases could be tried separately and the libel case could come to conclusion first.
Ian