Legal Definitions - conjectural choice, rule of

The rule of conjectural choice is a legal principle that states a party cannot win a lawsuit or recover damages if their entire argument about what caused the harm or loss is based purely on speculation, guesswork, or assumption, rather than on concrete evidence.

In simpler terms, if you can't provide actual proof or a reasonable inference from facts to explain why something happened, and you're just guessing, the court will not allow your claim to proceed because there's no solid foundation for your argument.

Here are some examples illustrating this rule:

• Personal Injury Claim: A pedestrian slips and falls on a public sidewalk. They sue the city, claiming negligence for failing to maintain the sidewalk. However, during the trial, the pedestrian admits they didn't see any crack, debris, ice, or other defect on the sidewalk. They simply state that they *must* have slipped on something because they fell. Since there is no evidence of a specific hazard or defect that caused the fall, and the pedestrian's claim rests entirely on the conjecture that "something must have been there," the court would likely apply the rule of conjectural choice, preventing them from recovering damages.

• Product Liability Case: A consumer purchases a new kitchen appliance, and a few weeks later, it suddenly stops working. They sue the manufacturer, alleging a manufacturing defect. However, the consumer has not had the appliance inspected by an expert, cannot identify any specific flaw, and has no evidence to suggest *how* or *why* the appliance failed. Their entire argument is that the appliance *must* have been defective because it stopped working unexpectedly. Without any evidence beyond mere speculation about the defect, the court would likely find that the claim is based on conjecture, not fact.

• Business Contract Dispute: A small business owner contracts with a marketing firm to boost sales. After several months, sales have not improved, and the business owner sues the marketing firm, claiming their strategies were ineffective and caused a loss of potential profits. However, the business owner cannot present any specific data, market analysis, or expert testimony to demonstrate a direct link between the marketing firm's actions and the lack of sales. They merely *assume* the firm's strategies were the sole reason for the poor performance, without considering other market factors, economic downturns, or internal business issues. Because the causal link between the firm's actions and the alleged loss is purely speculative, the rule of conjectural choice would likely apply.