Most personal injury lawsuits are not related to a criminal matter. Typical personal injury lawsuits involve car accidents, slip-and-fall accidents, other hazardous property conditions, workplace injuries, defective products, and similar.
You can recover damages in a personal injury lawsuit if the defendant was negligent. Negligence can be defined as failing to exercise the appropriate level of care in a particular situation. However, most negligence cases do not arise from a criminal act, and the injured person can pursue compensation with a personal injury lawsuit in civil court.
However, on occasion, the harm is both a civil matter and a crime. One example is a drunk driving accident. A person injured by a drunk driver may file a civil lawsuit to recover damages for medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, and so on. Simultaneously, the driver could be charged with a DUI-related crime, and their criminal trial would proceed. Legally, the two cases are unrelated, though if the person is convicted of drunk driving, it would seem to follow that they would be held liable for having caused the crash, and therefore, the victim’s injury.
But what if your personal injury—that’s also a crime—results in the defendant being acquitted (found not guilty)? Can you still successfully recover damages in a personal injury lawsuit?
You can file a personal injury lawsuit after a “not guilty” verdict
A civil lawsuit and criminal trial can exist simultaneously and side by side because criminal and civil cases serve different purposes and apply different standards of proof.
The state brings a criminal case to punish the defendant. The defendant could be issued a fine, sentenced to prison time, probation, rehabilitation, or other punishments. The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the highest standard in the law and means the jury must not have any reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt. In other words, the jury has what the Supreme Court calls a “moral certainty” of guilt in order to convict.
A civil personal injury lawsuit is brought by the victim or their family (the plaintiff in a civil case) to obtain compensation for their financial losses. The plaintiff must show liability by a preponderance of the evidence, which means the defendant is “more likely than not” to be liable. The judge and jury need to believe there is more than a 50% chance that the defendant is liable.
In other words, a person must be acquitted (found not guilty) in criminal court if the jury has doubts, but they can still be liable in a civil case where the bar for proof is lower.
One famous case where this happened was O.J. Simpson’s criminal and civil trials. Heisman-winning NFL player O.J. Simpson was arrested for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend. Although he was found not guilty in his criminal trial, the families of the victims filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Simpson and recovered $33.5 million in damages.
Double jeopardy
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment says that no person “shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” In other words, the government can’t prosecute someone twice criminally for the same offense after an acquittal or conviction. However, because a civil lawsuit serves a different purpose, it’s a separate proceeding and does not violate double jeopardy.
In addition, the parties are different. In a criminal case, the prosecutor is the state, and the penalties are prison, fines, or probation. In a civil personal injury lawsuit, the individual is sued by a private party, and the outcome would be in the form of money damages.
Therefore, civil liability is considered legally distinct from criminal guilt.
Why might a victim file a civil lawsuit?
- Lower standard of proof. Even if a case cannot meet the reasonable doubt standard, it could still succeed by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Broader damages. Civil courts can award compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. Crime victim restitution is only specific economic losses and would not include other non-economic damages.
- Additional defendants. A criminal charge involves one defendant. However, a civil lawsuit can be filed against the alleged negligent actor and third parties like employers, businesses, or insurers who contributed to the injury.
When might a plaintiff consider a civil personal injury lawsuit?
- If they have a serious injury (or if the victim has died);
- When insurance or third-party liability could provide an additional source of recovery;
- When the victim requires compensation for lifelong expenses that restitution or the criminal case will not cover; or
- When accountability is important for the victim’s sense of justice.
What strategies do plaintiffs’ lawyers use to win these types of lawsuits?
When a defendant is acquitted criminally but the victim still wants civil compensation, a plaintiff’s lawyer has to reframe the case carefully. Some of the strategies typically used in a personal injury case after an acquittal include:
Emphasizing standards of proof
A lawyer for the plaintiff might say something like, “We’re not here to convict, we’re here to decide if the defendant is more likely than not responsible for these injuries.” It’s important for the jury to understand the distinction.
Shift from intent to negligence where possible
A criminal case often requires proof of intent (for instance, intent to kill or intent to cause injury). A personal injury lawyer might frame the same conduct as negligence or recklessness, which is a lower threshold that focuses on carelessness or unreasonable behavior but not criminal intent.
Use of broader rules of evidence
Evidence rules in a civil trial can be less strict than in a criminal trial. Unlike in a criminal trial, a personal injury lawyer may introduce prior bad acts (if relevant to credibility or pattern), hearsay under civil exceptions (such as medical records or out-of-court statements), and circumstantial evidence that wasn’t strong enough for a criminal conviction but supports liability under a civil proceeding standard.
Highlight victim’s injury or harm
Rather than focusing solely on the defendant’s guilt, the strategy could be to center on the victim’s injuries and losses. This would shift the jury’s attention from criminal punishment to fair compensation.
In other words, focus on accountability, not punishment. The jurors could hesitate to award damages if they think they’re “second-guessing” a criminal acquittal.
The lawyers will try to reframe by reminding jurors that they’re not being asked whether or not to send someone to jail. They’re being asked to ensure that the injured party isn’t left with a financial burden.
Pursue deep-pocketed third parties
It’s not unusual for a defendant to have limited assets. When that happens, the plaintiff’s lawyer might include their employer (if the case could involve negligent hiring or supervision), the bar or restaurant if the case involves dram shop liability for drunk driving, or a property owner for negligent security or unsafe conditions.
This both broadens the methods for recovery and avoids jurors’ being reluctant to “punish” someone who was already acquitted.
Seek punitive damages
If the defendant acted egregiously (reckless, malicious, or fraudulent conduct), there might be an opportunity for punitive damages. The lawyers will emphasize to the jury that the purpose of punitive damages is to deter future similar conduct, even though the criminal court did not convict.
Contact a personal injury lawyer
Like most aspects of the law, this process is complex. A plaintiff’s lawyer doesn’t simply re-try the criminal case. Instead, they pivot the theory of liability, use the lower evidentiary standard, and focus on compensation and accountability. This makes civil justice viable even after a criminal acquittal.
See our guide Choosing a personal injury attorney.