EVIDENCE-BURDEN OF PROOF

Authors

Duncan Noble S.Ed, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

In 1945, plaintiff, a common carrier, accepted a shipment of automotive parts from an army depot, which shipment had been loaded and sealed by service personnel before delivery to plaintiff. The bill of lading clerk, as was his usual practice, issued a straight bill without personally checking the contents. In fact the contents were short of those indicated in the bill, as was discovered by plaintiff's employees when they checked the car immediately prior to forwarding. Plaintiff sued for the balance of the freight charge withheld by the United States to cover the shortage, the present opinion of the trial court being delivered in 1952. Held: because of the lapse of time and interim disbandment of army units, making proof by the government difficult, plaintiff was required to produce "clear and concise" proof of its allegations, or more than a "preponderance of the evidence," which burden plaintiff did meet. Detroit & T.S.L.R. Co. v. United States, (D.C. Ohio 1952) 105 F. Supp. 182.

Recommended Citation

Duncan Noble S.Ed, EVIDENCE-BURDEN OF PROOF, 51 Mich. L. Rev. 931 (1953).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol51/iss6/13