In Denmark motorists have reversed burden of proof when it comes to liability for damages. In other words, if a driver of a car is involved in an accident, they

In Denmark motorists have reversed burden of proof when it comes to liability for damages. In other words, if a driver of a car is involved in an accident, they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that they were not the party at fault or be liable. If that sounds onerous, remember that motor vehicles are mandated to covered by a liability insurance, so it's the insurance company that ends up paying. The insurance company will sometimes sue the driver after, if they think the accident was caused by gross negligence on the driver's part, but this is irrelevant to the party not at fault. I remember from my brief stint in law school that our professor told us, that there is a good case to be made for changing the law from reverse burden of proof to objective liability, ie. motorist' should always be liable, no ifs, ands, or buts. The reason, he explained, is in the cases where two motorists are in an accident, a lot of resources are wasted in determining liability. Since what always happens is that one insurance company must pay and another one doesn't, and since each insurance company will on average win as many cases as they lose, it would save a lot of money and time to just declare that each driver is 50% liable and be done with it. I also seem to remember that this is how it works in New Zealand, but I could be misremembering.