Court Opinion

ID: 9773453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:46:22.124721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:53.979071
License: Public Domain

WESTHUES, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the ruling that the trial court was. justified in granting a new trial because of error in instruction K. It is my opinion that instruction K is erroneous and that such instructions have no place in civil cases.
A plaintiff in a civil case, to justify a verdict in his favor, is required to prove his case by a. preponderance, that is, the greater weight of the credible evidence. A requirement that he must do so “to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury” or “to the satisfaction of the jury” places a greater burden on a plaintiff than the law requires. Instructions on the burden of proof containing either of the phrases mentioned should be declared to be prejudicial and erroneous irrespective of the ruling of a trial court on a motion for .new trial. We have heretofore, in a number of cases, held instructions containing the phrase “to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury” not to be prejudicially erroneous. This is contrary to the great weight of authority. See Rouchene v. Gamble Const. Co., 338 Mo. 123, 89 S.W.2d 58, loc. cit. 63(12); Nelson v. Evans, 338 Mo. 991, 93 S.W.2d 691, loc. cit. 694-696(3, 4) (5); Blunk v. Snider,. 342 Mo. 26, 111 S.W.2d 163, loc. cit. 165, 166 (7, 8); and 32 C.J.S. Evidence, § 1020, p. 1047.
In my opinion, instruction K should be held to be erroneous because it contains the phrase “to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury” even if the phrase “to the satisfaction of the jury” had been omitted..
I, therefore, concur in the result.