Meaning of Prima Facie in Law

The difference between the two is that prima facie is a term that means that there is enough evidence to answer a case, while res ipsa loquitur means that the facts are so obvious that one party no longer needs to explain itself. For example: “There is prima facie evidence that the defendant is liable. They controlled the pump. The pump was left on and flooded the applicant`s home. The plaintiff was absent and had left the house in the care of the defendant. Res ipsa loquitur. A common use of the term is the concept of “prima facie speed limit” used in Australia and the United States. A prima facie speed limit is a standard speed limit that applies when no other specific speed limit is specified and can be exceeded by a driver. However, if the driver is identified and reported by the police for exceeding the limit, the onus is on the driver to prove that the speed at which he was travelling was safe under the circumstances. In most countries, this type of speed limit has been replaced by absolute speed limits. For example, there is prima facie case presented by the plaintiff against the defendant alleging that the defendant started a fire in the plaintiff`s garage. It appears that the defendant had access to the plaintiff`s garage.

The case becomes res ipsa loquitur if the plaintiff was not in the city and had left control of the garage to the defendant. Let us say there is an indictment for murder. And among the evidence gathered is a videotape showing the complainant screaming in response to the accused`s death threats. In a court of law, such evidence is likely to be considered prima facie (intent to kill) evidence. However, the prosecution must prove this in court so that the jury can find a basis to convict the accused of murder. Also in criminal law, a copy of the respondents` criminal record may be considered prima facie by the jury. This may include his previous convictions, which may be used against him in court. Note that while a prima facie may be accepted for the proceedings, there is no guarantee that a plaintiff will win the case. This is because if the judge later determines in the course of the proceedings that there is insufficient evidence to justify prosecution, the court automatically dismisses the case.

In fact, any indication of a discriminatory motive may be sufficient to raise an issue that can only be resolved through an investigation. Once prima facie evidence has been established, summary judgment is generally not appropriate for the defendant on reasonable grounds, since the primary purpose of a Title VII litigation is the elusive factual issue of intentional discrimination. Therefore, the burden at the summary judgment stage is not heavy. Once the applicant has demonstrated credibility, the burden of filing is shifted to the employer to articulate a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for the applicant`s rejection. If the employer bears the burden, the claimant has the opportunity to provide evidence that the employer`s reason for the refusal was invalid. In the theory of political debate, prima facie is used to describe the mandates or elements of a positive case or, in rare cases, a negative counter-plan. If the negative team invokes prima facie the fact, it invokes the fact that the affirmative team cannot add or modify anything in its plan after it has been made in the first positive constructive statement. An applicant may also prove a prima facie case by presenting “evidence to conclude that an employment decision was based on a discriminatory criterion that is unlawful under [Title VII]”. An applicant who presents such evidence in support of his or her prima facie case may survive summary judgment solely on the basis of that evidence. In common law jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and the United States, the prosecution must disclose all evidence of the defence in a criminal case. This includes prima facie evidence.

In Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981), the Supreme Court held that “the burden of proof for a prima facie case of unequal treatment is not heavy”. For more information on prima facie, see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554 (2007); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002); Hernandez v. New York, 500 US 352 (1991). See also this article from the Louisiana Law Review.

For example, in criminal proceedings, the prosecution has a duty to provide prima facie case of each element of the offence with which the accused is charged. In a murder case, this would include evidence that the victim was indeed dead, that the accused`s act caused death, and that the defendant acted with malicious intent. If no party presents new evidence, the case is upheld or dismissed only on prima facie evidence or lack of prima facie evidence. The term prima facie is sometimes misspelled prima facia in the erroneous belief that facia is the actual Latin word; However, faciē is actually the ablative of faciēs, a Latin name of the fifth declension. Although “the mere existence of prima facie evidence based on the minimum evidence necessary to establish a McDonnell Douglas presumption does not preclude summary judgment.” In fact, “the applicant [who has established a prima facie case] must provide very little evidence of a discriminatory ground to raise a genuine question of fact” to create a pretext. A prima facie case is a legal clause or allegation invoked when the prosecution has sufficient evidence to initiate legal proceedings and prove that the accused is guilty. The term is derived from a Latin word meaning “at first sight” or “at first sight”. On its face, this is a case in which evidence was considered by a judge prior to trial and found sufficient to warrant trial. The term is used particularly in civil cases where the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.