Court Opinion

ID: 9719178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:45:05.053213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:04.951468
License: Public Domain

CANE, P.J.
(concurring) As the law now stands, I must concur with the majority's decision in this case. However, the current law on burdens of proof needs to be changed. That change must come from the supreme court, not this court.
I submit that there should be only one burden of proof in all civil actions. The linguistic distinctions between "clear, satisfactory and convincing" evidence and the "greater weight of the credible" evidence are *382distinctions recognized only in the minds of lawyers or judges. Historically, this "perceived" distinction has resulted in numerous appeals, while in reality, the difference in the burdens of proof does not exist. Juries cannot tell the difference, and we should put an end to this mythical or highly technical difference.
I can understand having a "higher" burden of proof in criminal cases where we have the additional requirement of unanimity for an acceptable verdict. On the other hand, in civil actions where a verdict of five-sixths of the jurors results in money damages, regardless of the recovery theory, we should have one burden of proof. The obligation placed upon the plaintiff to prove additional elements, for example, an intentional act or deceit, is a sufficient additional requirement for the more serious acts. Requiring juries to be convinced to different degrees of certainty, however, is unnecessary and results only in confusion for the jurors. This problem becomes even more absurd in this case where the theories for recovery are virtually identical, and yet "different" burdens of proof are required.