Court Opinion

ID: 9537039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:11:41.297801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:50.099402
License: Public Domain

McFarland, J.,
dissenting: The majority correctly concludes that it is a matter of public policy whether or not the NorrisLaGuardia standard of clear proof is adopted in Kansas. The majority then elects to follow the Norris-LaGuardia standard.
The majority opinion also correctly concludes that by virtue of appellant’s failure to object to the instruction relative to the standard of proof, the judgment cannot be reversed unless the instruction was clearly erroneous.
When this case was tried the public policy question as to *765which of the two legally valid options relative to the standard of proof is preferable had not been determined by this court. In discussing pros and cons of each option, it is obvious the majority does not consider either option to be “clearly erroneous.” Therefore, the instruction at the time of trial herein utilizing one of the two equally viable standards of proof cannot be considered “clearly erroneous” based upon this court’s subsequent selection of the other option as representing the better public policy.
Further, I would adopt the ordinary burden of persuasion standard rather than the Norris-LaGuardia standard.
I would affirm the judgment of the district court.
Schroeder, C.J., joins the foregoing dissenting opinion.