First, what exactly is the plaintiff going to sue for? The judge has ruled that a sexual assault did not take place. Hence, no physical harm was done to the woman, so no compensation for that can be claimed. That leaves claims for damages arising from more tangential issues, but there again what would have to be clearly established were the cabbie's actions. Heaping conjecture about that on top of conjecture about the woman's behavior doesn't prove much in the balance of probabilities equation.

Hypothetical scenario: cabbie accepts heavily intoxicated passenger. He follows her mixed up instructions on where to turn, and winds up lost. She's so intoxicated that she urinates in the back seat, pulls off her soaked clothing, and then passes out. And that's when a police cruiser just happens to come by.

What is the counter-explanation that you suggest is more likely than that, based on a balance of probabilities?