Burden of proof isn't presumption of innocence. Burden of proof always lies with the party making the positive assertion. In criminal trials, that's something l

Burden of proof isn't presumption of innocence. Burden of proof always lies with the party making the positive assertion. In criminal trials, that's something like "Shmerl did it, with a pipe, in the pantry" or whatever. This is why, for example, a criminal defense of insanity must be proven by the defense — and why such a defense is risky. The defense is stipulating to the fact that the defendant committed the act, but arguing the defendant didn't have the requisite mens rea to make their actions a crime. That eliminates the State's burden to prove that they did it, and assumes the burden of proving the defendant's state of mind/lack of culpability at the time. In a civil case, the question is more one of "Here's why Shmerl is responsible (and, consequently, liable) for what happened." The facts (that Shmerl did whatever, to whomever, at whatever time) are often stipulated to. The positive assertion being made by the plaintiff against him is the degree of liability. Consider the oft-mocked case of Liebeck v. McDonald's. No one disputed for a second that she bought the coffee at McDonald's, that it was the temperature it was, or that it was spilled. That wasn't remotely the question. Rather, the question was, "Should they have known better, to a degree that makes what happened to her their fault?" Does that distinction make sense?