Excellent recent example…..although my guess is that the families would have preferred seeing him do hard time for the rest of his life. And, a civil suit might not be too meaningful in situations where there's nothing to seize.
Unlike a criminal trial where the jury decision has to be unanimous and the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" in this civil case only a ¾ majority is required and the standard of proof is "a reasonable man" would think. So it is not unreasonable for persons not satisfied with the results of a criminal trial to turn to civil court to get satisfaction. Monetary awards in cases like that are often secondary to the plaintiff having the satisfaction of a court acknowledging the defendants
guilt in the act.
Civil juries have even been known to find for the plaintiff
even though the plaintiff did nothing wrong. I was on a civil jury where several jurors acknowledged the defendant did nothing wrong, but because the plaintiff had suffered pain and anguish she deserved compensation and they wanted to find for the plaintiff. FWIW as there were only three jurors who felt that way the decision of the other nine was sufficient to prevail and we found for the defendant.
