I want to get your opinions

[magickyleo101]

So I'm in the middle of writing a paper for a class and I'd like to get the views of as many people as possible regarding a given hypothetical. I'm especially interested in the views of non-Americans on this issue:

Hopothetical

"Consider... a case in which it is a common ground that 499 people paid for admission to a rodeo, and that 1,000 are counted in the seats, of whom A is one. Suppose no tickets were issued and there can be notestimony as to whether A paid for admission or climbed over the fence. So by any plausible criterion of mathematical probability, there is a .501 probability, on the admitted facts, that he did not pay. The mathematical theory would apparently imply that in such circumstances the rodeo organizers are entitled to a judgment against A for the admission-money, since the balance of probability [the preponderance of the evidence] .... would lie in their favour.

...

Indeed, if the organizers were really entitled to judgment against A, they would presumable be equally entitled to judgment against each person in the same situation as A. So they might conceivably be entitled to recover 1,000 admission moneys, when it was admitted that 499 had actually been paid." (the hypothetical is due to I. Jonathan Cohen)

What do you guys think about this situation. Assuming (as it true) that in a civil case the plaintiff's burden is only to show that it's "more likely than not" that the defendant wronged him (i.e. the guy suing has to show that it's more than 50% likely that the guy he's suing owes him money), should the defendant be forced to pay the plaintiff? If not, why not?

Don't worry if you don't have much background with the legal system. The opinions of non-lawyers are the ones I'm most interested in, because I'm asking how the legal system should be set up, not how it's actually set up.

Thanks in advance to everyone who takes the time to state their views on the topic.

[hellheaven1987]

The situation is that A is in an disadvantage if he is arrested right in the place of activity, or the organizer has solid proof that A is in the activity. Of course, A can still defend himself if he has recipe, or pay the ticket using electronic money transfer (hence, left a record in bank that he did pay to the organizer). Of course, if the organizer has no solid proof that A was in the activity, then A can simply argue he was not there at all.

[Senno]

Is the number of paid vs unpaid admissions the only "evidence" in the case? I'd say that those figures don't constitute any legal evidence at all, as it doesn't speak to the defendant's actions; it is not tangible, nor testimonial. Certainly the actual activities of the defendant are crucial, not the theoretical?

Of course you realize that there are few law students or lawyers amongst us, and I am not one. tBP might answer, you might PM him to take a look at the thread.

[magickyleo101]

Assume that A admits he was there (e.g. he admits he was and other people say him, etc.) and that there's no other evidence indicating whether or not he paid (i.e. no receipts were issued, no stamps places on hands, no security cameras, etc.).

My question here isn't whether it's legal for a verdict to be delivered against him, but whether it's unfair for him to be convicted on the basis of such evidence alone. In other words, do you guys think the legal system should be set up so that a person who offers such evidence, and only such evidence, should be allowed go get money from the person he's suing.

[hellheaven1987]

Assume that A admits he was there (e.g. he admits he was and other people say him, etc.) and that there's no other evidence indicating whether or not he paid (i.e. no receipts were issued, no stamps places on hands, no security cameras, etc.).

My question here isn't whether it's legal for a verdict to be delivered against him, but whether it's unfair for him to be convicted on the basis of such evidence alone. In other words, do you guys think the legal system should be set up so that a person who offers such evidence, and only such evidence, should be allowed go get money from the person he's suing.

Bad for A, but I remember offering reciept is part of law too... Anyway, the thing is that A is in a disadvantage, unless he can bring out eye-witness that support he did pay the ticket, or judge can never know the truth and has to favor organizer's claim.

We have to remember that judge has to remain neutral whole time and have shown no favor to either side. In that case, organizer has more evidences to prove their claim, and A has little.

[Senno]

Quite unfair. I don't believe that evidence is of any probative value to establish the facts of the case. I don't care if 10,000 people testify to those facts or 1 person, or if 100 paid and 900 got in free. That evidence is weightless and doesn't establish anything as to defendants actual actions.