Abstract
if, in proceedings before a court, it is considered whether a member of an elected body has failed to exercise due care, that member bears the burden of proof unless he or she cannot fairly be required to do so. A member, even a former member, must prove before the court that he has not failed to exercise due care.
However, the burden of proof does not shift per se. The aim of this paper is thus set out the situations in which the burden of proof is reversed in the event of a breach of the duty of care and to what extent.
At the same time, the paper looks at situations where the reversal of the burden of proof on a member of an elected body does not occur.