Is proving a personal injury case the same as proving a criminal case?

No, not at all. The most important distinction between a personal injury and a criminal case is the burden of proof.

• A personal injury case requires that you (the injured person) prove your case by a “preponderance of the evidence“.
• A criminal case means that the prosecutor must prove the case “beyond a reasonable doubt“.

We like to use a football analogy to explain burden of proof.

• To prove your civil case (PI case), you must get the football to the 51st yard line. That’s “preponderance of the evidence”.
• To prove a criminal case, the prosecutor must get the football almost – just about to – the goal line. That’s “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Some personal injury cases would have a criminal case as well.

• For example, if your spouse was killed by a drunk driver, you would be entitled to sue for wrongful death (personal injury case) and the prosecutor could bring a drunk driving, vehicular homicidecase (criminal case) as well.
• For example, the OJ Simpson case had both a (civil) personal injury – wrongful death – lawsuit brought by Nicole Simpson Brown and Ronald Goldman’s parents and a criminal murder case brought by LA prosecutors.

  The Simpson case shows that it is easier to prove a (civil) personal injury case than a criminal case because of the differing burdens of proof.