Q: Preposterous vs prepondarance

A: In California, the standard of proof in civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence." This means that the party with the burden of proof must present evidence that is more likely to be true than not true. In other words, if the evidence presented by the plaintiff and the defendant are equally balanced, the party with the burden of proof will lose.

In the scenario you described, the defendant presents testimonies from a thousand independent witnesses stating that the plaintiff is more likely to be dead than alive. This would be considered strong evidence in favor of the defendant's position.

However, the plaintiff's allegation that they are most likely alive is also evidence that must be considered. The court would have to weigh the credibility and strength of the plaintiff's evidence against the defendant's evidence.

Ultimately, the decision would depend on the specific details of the case and the evidence presented by both parties. The court would consider factors such as:

1. The credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies

2. The basis for the witnesses' knowledge about the plaintiff's status

3. Any other evidence that supports or contradicts the plaintiff's claim of being alive

If the court finds that the defendant's evidence is more convincing and credible than the plaintiff's evidence, then the defendant's position would likely prevail under the preponderance of the evidence standard.

However, if the court finds that the plaintiff's evidence is more persuasive, or if the evidence presented by both sides is equally balanced, then the plaintiff's claim may succeed.

In summary, while the testimony of a thousand independent witnesses is strong evidence, it is not necessarily preponderant against the plaintiff's allegation without considering the specific details and the totality of the evidence presented in the case.