Is the NTSB's finding of probable cause admissible as evidence in a civil trial for negligence?

• A. Yes, it provides definitive proof of negligence.
• B. No, it is considered opinion and not direct evidence.
• C. Only partial evidence can be considered.
• D. Yes, if it aligns with witness testimony.

Answer: (B)

The NTSB's finding of probable cause is not admissible as evidence in a civil trial for negligence primarily because it is viewed as an opinion rather than direct evidence of negligence. The rationale behind this lies in the NTSB's function; their role is to investigate accidents to determine the underlying causes and make recommendations to prevent future occurrences.

Their findings are designed for regulatory and corrective purposes rather than to establish liability in court. In a civil negligence case, the burden of proof requires concrete evidence that clearly demonstrates wrongdoing, causation, and damages. The NTSB's probable cause finding, while potentially informative, does not meet the threshold for direct evidence needed to establish liability.

Additionally, the findings may not have been subjected to the same rigorous standards of evidence and cross-examination that are typically present in civil litigation. Therefore, while the NTSB's conclusions can be influential in shaping understanding of an incident, they lack the legal standing to be used as definitive proof in a negligence claim.

In conclusion, the nature of the NTSB's findings—that they are opinions about possible contributing factors rather than directly establishing negligence—explains their inadmissibility in civil trials concerning negligence.