What happens if it cannot be determined who was more at fault in a liability case?

In liability cases where it cannot be determined who was more at fault, it is possible for both parties to be held equally liable. This concept is often associated with the legal principle of contributory or comparative negligence, depending on the jurisdiction.

When both parties are deemed to have contributed to the incident without clear evidence showing that one party is more at fault than the other, the court may decide to assign equal liability. This means that both parties may bear the responsibility for damages in a manner proportional to their respective involvement in the incident, if applicable.

This approach helps ensure fairness and justice, especially in situations where evidence and testimonies are inconclusive. For example, if two drivers were in a minor collision and it is unclear who acted negligently, a court might find both drivers equally responsible for any damages incurred. This helps mitigate the risk of an unfair burden on one party when fault cannot be clearly established.

In contrast, only assigning liability to one party without fault determination would not reflect the shared circumstances of the incident. Dismissing the case outright removes the opportunity to address the claims made, while a scenario where no liability is assigned would not capture the complexities of shared fault in many real-life situations.