Assault and Battery

You are here: Home » Assault and Battery

When your injuries are caused by another person intentionally, you have the right to sue them for those injuries. Regardless of the severity of your injuries the intentional act of assaulting you leaves the aggressor liable for your injuries.

The aggressor need not be convicted of causing your injuries. In fact, in many cases they may not be convicted because of the higher level of proof required in criminal proceedings, known as “reasonable doubt”. In a civil lawsuit however, the level of proof is generally a “preponderance of the evidence”.

To understand these principles, let us explain the difference between “reasonable doubt” and a “preponderance of the evidence”.

Reasonable Doubt

“Reasonable doubt” means that after presentation of the evidence, a jury could not find that there is any realistic doubt that the person committed the act. Reasonable doubt can be as simple as a lack of independent witnesses to corroborate the victim’s testimony. It can be the mere possibility that the assailant might have been someone else who looks similar to the accused. It can be any set of circumstances that might cause a “reasonable” person to believe there is a mere possibility that the accused did not commit the crime.

Preponderance of the Evidence

“Preponderance of the Evidence” is virtually the opposite. This means that a reasonable person could conclude that based on the available facts, it is extremely likely that the accused is the person who committed the act and that despite some doubt, it is far more likely that they did, than that they did not.

The difference between these two levels of proof is why even though a person may not be convicted in criminal proceedings and sent to jail, they may be found liable in civil proceedings and be ordered to compensate a victim financially.

How we can help

The most difficult part of pursuing an assault and battery claim is generally collecting on the judgment. Sometimes homeowners or other insurance will cover the claim, but most insurance does not cover intentional acts by the insured. As such, it is often necessary to utilize the methods outlined in the California Code of Civil Procedure for collecting on judgments.

These methods include levying on bank accounts, garnishing wages, and forcing the sale of property. Many firms will simply turn away cases where there is no easy way of collecting. Here at the Lalezary Firm, we are experienced in post-judgment collections and will carry the case through to the end.

Call us today at (888) 778-8888 for a free consultation or Contact Us online.