Legal Definitions - conclusion of fact

A conclusion of fact, also known as a finding of fact, is a determination made by the person or group responsible for deciding the truth in a legal case (the "trier of fact") regarding what actually happened. These conclusions are reached after opposing parties present evidence and arguments about disputed events or circumstances.

When there's a disagreement over the facts—for instance, whether a certain event occurred, who was present, or what was said—the trier of fact must weigh the evidence, assess witness credibility, and decide which version of events is true. The trier of fact can be a jury in a jury trial or a judge in a bench trial (a trial without a jury). These factual determinations are fundamental because they serve as the basis upon which legal rules are applied to reach a final judgment in a case. Appellate courts generally give significant deference to conclusions of fact, meaning they are rarely overturned unless there there was a clear and undeniable error in the original decision.

• Example 1: Car Accident Liability

  In a lawsuit following a car accident, the plaintiff testifies that the defendant sped through a red light, causing the collision. The defendant, however, claims they had a green light and the plaintiff was distracted. The jury, acting as the trier of fact, listens to both testimonies, reviews traffic camera footage, and considers expert witness reports on vehicle speeds and impact points. After deliberation, the jury decides that the defendant did indeed run the red light. This decision—that the defendant ran the red light—is a conclusion of fact. It's a determination of what actually happened based on the evidence presented, and it will be crucial for deciding legal liability.

• Example 2: Contractual Agreement Dispute

  Two companies are in a legal dispute over a software development project. Company A claims that Company B orally agreed to include a specific feature in the software during a meeting, which would justify a higher payment. Company B denies that any such agreement was ever made. The judge, acting as the trier of fact in a bench trial, hears testimony from representatives of both companies and reviews meeting minutes and email exchanges. The judge must decide whether an oral agreement for the specific feature was, in fact, made. If the judge determines that Company B's representative did verbally agree to include the feature, that finding is a conclusion of fact. This factual determination will directly influence whether Company A owes the higher payment.

• Example 3: Property Boundary Encroachment

  Two neighbors are in court because they disagree on the exact location of their shared property line. One neighbor has built a shed, believing it's entirely on their land, while the other neighbor claims the shed encroaches onto their property by several feet. The court reviews property deeds, surveyor reports, historical maps, and possibly even aerial photographs. The judge, as the trier of fact, must weigh this conflicting evidence to determine the precise legal boundary between the two properties. The judge's decision on where the property line actually lies is a conclusion of fact. This factual finding will then dictate whether the shed needs to be moved or if its current placement is permissible.