Let's boggle brains. OK. So it is called the "Case of the Blue Bus" and as stated above it is from acclaimed Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson. Nesson teaches/taught evidence and criminal law at Harvard. The riddle is as follows:

"Mr. Smith is driving down a dark two lane road late one night when he encounters the headlights of a vehicle speeding towards him in the center of the road. To avoid a head on collision, he swerves off the road and his car hits a tree. in the darkness he sees that the vehicle speeding by was a bus. While recovering from his injuries, Mr. Smith learns that the Blue Bus company owns and operates 80 percent of the buses that drive along the route where the accident occurred. Mr. Smith sues the Blue Bus company for damages. During the trial he proves all the aforementioned facts but admits that he cannot identify the color of the bus that forced him off the road. Given all of this evidence, can Mr. Smith win his case"?

Discuss.

are all the buses owned by the Blue Bus company the same color?

Correct. They are all blue.

No, just because a company runs 80% of the bus traffic doesn't prove that they were in charge of the bus.

Let's boggle brains. OK. So it is called the "Case of the Blue Bus" and as stated above it is from acclaimed Harvard Law School professor Charles Nesson. Nesson teaches/taught evidence and criminal law at Harvard. The riddle is as follows:

"Mr. Smith is driving down a dark two lane road late one night when he encounters the headlights of a vehicle speeding towards him in the center of the road. To avoid a head on collision, he swerves off the road and his car hits a tree. in the darkness he sees that the vehicle speeding by was a bus. While recovering from his injuries, Mr. Smith learns that the Blue Bus company owns and operates 80 percent of the buses that drive along the route where the accident occurred. Mr. Smith sues the Blue Bus company for damages. During the trial he proves all the aforementioned facts but admits that he cannot identify the color of the bus that forced him off the road. Given all of this evidence, can Mr. Smith win his case"?

Discuss.

DId he see the bus speed by before the accident or after it?

To avoid a head on collision, he swerves off the road and his car hits a tree. in the darkness he sees that the vehicle speeding by was a bus.

The way that's written is kind of ambiguous.

If he saw the bus was the vehicle he swerved to avoid, then yes, he can win his case, if he can prove that there was a bus on that route at that time, and that the Blue Bus company was running that route while no other bus company had a bus there on that schedule.

DId he see the bus speed by before the accident or after it?



The way that's written is kind of ambiguous.

If he saw the bus was the vehicle he swerved to avoid, then yes, he can win his case, if he can prove that there was a bus on that route at that time, and that the Blue Bus company was running that route while no other bus company had a bus there on that schedule.

You are forgetting about privateers, many companies that only run one or 2 buses or freight carriers keep logs of the times of departure, and arrival upon the destination, but does not show the times of certain stops along a route thus you are unable to show that a certain private company was/was not at the location at the time of the accident. They can however give an approximate time. but this could also conflict with the schedule of the blue bus company.

The real question is, if a certain company did cause the wreck, then that means they also witnessed the wreck. If they witnessed the wreck and did not call for help, then could this also be another case against the company.

No, not without more evidence he can not win his case.

The real question is, if a certain company did cause the wreck, then that means they also witnessed the wreck. If they witnessed the wreck and did not call for help, then could this also be another case against the company.

This sounds like it would be a criminal charge of fleeing the scene brought by the state.

No, not without more evidence he can not win his case.

What's the burden of proof for the plaintiff in this particular case?

DId he see the bus speed by before the accident or after it?

He saw the bus after the accident.

The way that's written is kind of ambiguous.

If he saw the bus was the vehicle he swerved to avoid, then yes, he can win his case, if he can prove that there was a bus on that route at that time, and that the Blue Bus company was running that route while no other bus company had a bus there on that schedule.

He has proved that 80% of the buses on that route were being run by Blue Bus. 20% were from other companies which have buses that are not necessarily blue.

look at all you cute little nonlawyers trying to be lawyers

edit: the answer is

in a criminal trial the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. but that is not the standard we are dealing with here. in a civil case the standard of proof is by preponderance of the evidence. this only means the plaintiff must convince the trier of fact (which may be judge or jury depending on whether it is a bench or jury trial) that the plaintiff's version of the facts is more likely to be true than the defendant's. in other words, preponderance of the evidence is a "more likely than not" standard, which is far lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

since they operate 80% of the buses on the route, a verdict for smith is justified, because there is an 80% chance that the bus was operated by blue bus. hell if they operated 50.0000000001% of the buses on the route, the proof would be legally sufficient to support a finding of liability. surprising? of course, it does seem a bit unfair, since there isn't really any actual evidence to tie blue bus to the incident.

Look who's talking, Phoenix Poopy: Almost-Ace Attorney

Arc Troopers Ftmfw!