Is proving a personal injury case the same as proving a criminal case?

No, not at all. The most important distinction between a personal injury and a criminal case is the burden of proof.

A personal injury case requires that you (the injured person) prove your case by a "preponderance of the evidence".
A criminal case means that the prosecutor must prove the case "beyond a reasonable doubt".

We like to use a football analogy to explain burden of proof.

To prove your civil case (PI case), you must get the football to the 51st yard line. That's "preponderance of the evidence".
To prove a criminal case, the prosecutor must get the football almost - just about to - the goal line. That's "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Some personal injury cases would have a criminal case as well.

For example, if your spouse was killed by a drunk driver, you would be entitled to sue for wrongful death (personal injury case) and the prosecutor could bring a drunk driving, vehicular homicidecase (criminal case) as well.
For example, the OJ Simpson case had both a (civil) personal injury - wrongful death - lawsuit brought by Nicole Simpson Brown and Ronald Goldman's parents and a criminal murder case brought by LA prosecutors.The Simpson case shows that it is easier to prove a (civil) personal injury case than a criminal case because of the differing burdens of proof.

More articles about Personal Injury