For both civil and criminal cases, the party bringing the action has the burden of proof, i.e., the responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof. The assumption is first that there is no guilt until the evidence is sufficient to establish legal sufficiency to prove a fact of guilt. In the case of medical malpractice, the plaintiff files a lawsuit and has the burden of providing a preponderance of evidence that includes all the elements required for a civil tort. Sometimes the burden of proof can shift to the defendant in certain cases, and the defendant must prove that he or she is innocent. The plaintiff’s case is easier to prove because the “facts are in front of him or her. Performing surgery on the wrong part of the body is one such case. The following facts may apply: 1. the injury would not normally have occurred but for negligence; 2. the means of causing the injury must have been beyond the defendant’s control; 3. the plaintiff is not responsible for the injury; and 4. the details of the evidence or facts are more readily available to the defendant than to the plaintiff. When the facts are in front of you, there is a defensible presumption-that there was negligence-that places the burden on the defendant to provide evidence to the contrary.