Dockhead
Well-Known Member
This is absolutely true.I know this will upset some and seems callous - but it is definitely not meant to be.
The problem there was that the Investigators had little to go on and they basically went 'fishing' for anything they could find to explain it .. and even then - it was only a 'most likely scenario' ... the actual cause was never proven beyond a doubt.
And this is why nav lights in poor condition or bodged with the wrong type of bulb, or mounted incorrectly, are a GIFT to the insurance companies, in case of a collision at night. Their whole job is to deny claims.
In civil matters nothing has to be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". That's a criminal law concept. In civil matters, like insurance cases, a "preponderance of the evidence" is all that's needed.