2

In the "trial of the century", O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown and her husband Ron Goldman.

However, he was later found in civil court to be "liable for their deaths" and still owes 60 million dollars (as of 2017) to the victims' families:

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/11/us/jury-decides-simpson-must-pay-25-million-in-punitive-award.html?mcubz=1

What does "liable for their deaths" mean here? Is it pretty much a conviction of murder, but done through the civil courts, since one cannot be found guilty in criminal court, due to "double jeopardy"?

3

When a person unlawfully kills someone else they have committed a crime against the state (murder, manslaughter etc.) and a civil wrong (a tort) against the victim (specifically, the tort of wrongful death).

The state responds with charging the perpetrator with a crime and attempting to prove that they did the deed "beyond reasonable doubt". If convicted the criminal is "punished" by incarceration or death or a fine or community service etc.

The victim (through their estate) or other affected people (family, dependents etc.) can respond by suing the perpetrator for compensation (money) for the damage they caused. If the plaintiff proves their case "on the balance of probabilities" the perpetrator will owe the plaintiffs whatever damages the court awards.

There are many crime/tort mirrors (many have the same name): theft and conversion, trespass and trespass, fraud and fraud, kidnapping and false imprisonment etc. Because of the different threshold of proof between criminal and civil liability, it is much easier to win a civil case.

  • As I understand it, the usual term in the US is "preponderance of the evidence." – phoog Oct 2 '17 at 16:18
  • @D.Hutchinson No - he was tried by the state once for murder and found not guilty. He was sued by the family once for wrongful death and was found liable. – Dale M Oct 3 '17 at 0:24
  • 1
    It means that he did not lawfully kill her and must pay compensation for that wrongdoing. Murder is unlawful killing but unlawful killing is not necessarily murder, – Dale M Oct 3 '17 at 0:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.