Court Opinion

ID: 9773027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:35:19.939682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:49.756346
License: Public Domain

WELLIVER, Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in result but disagree with the reasoning of the opinion.
While some of the events happening in the dim, dark past of the early sixties are by the passage of time becoming increasingly difficult to verify, the fact that both MAI and Rule 70.02 (now 70.03), were promulgated by a single order of the Court, “(M.A.I.1964, p. XXV, dated May 20, 1964, *684effective Jan. 1, 1965), suggests that the plaintiffs got M.A.I. and the defendants got Rule 70.02, (now 70.03). Plaintiffs were relieved of the perils of formulating and constructing verdict directors and defendants, primarily, were relieved of the perils of shooting from the hip on objections to instructions.
If the Court as now constituted desires to take Rule 70.03 from the defendants, it is respectfully suggested that it is in the best interest of fairness and justice and the orderly administration of justice that the same should be done by clear and concise amendment of Rule 70.03. To do otherwise defeats the underlying purpose of rules— the codification and simplification of the law, and returns Missouri lawyers to the technicalities and perils of pre-code practice.
As to the merits of the opinion itself, I am at a loss to understand the logic of its reasoning. If the submission of multiple alternative theories of recovery by the plaintiff does not overemphasize the plaintiffs side of the case, I cannot see why submission of multiple alternative defenses, especially where submitted by multiple defendants, overemphasizes the defense side of the case. Justice and fairness would séem to dictate equal treatment of both plaintiffs and defendants.