Court Opinion

ID: 9724079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:43:37.782666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:55.138047
License: Public Domain

CANE, P.J.
{concurring). I concur only for the purpose of urging that the courts reconsider having different burdens of proof in civil cases. As a former trial judge, I presided over hundreds of civil jury trials, and I seriously doubt that any juror can realistically tell the difference between the "ordinary" and "middle" burden of proof. Under the "ordinary" burden of proof, the jury is told: "The burden of proof... is to satisfy you to a reasonable certainty by the greater weight of the credible evidence ...." Wis JI — CIVIL 200. In comparison, under the "middle" burden of proof, the jury is told: "The burden of proof ... is ... to convince you to a *235reasonable certainty by evidence that is clear, satisfactory, and convincing...WlS JI — CIVIL 205. Arguably, one could contend the "ordinary" burden of proof is the higher standard.
As lawyers and judges, we somehow perceive a difference between the burden of proofs. Realistically, I say there is no difference. The important differences are the elements to be proven for liability, not the burden of proof. For those who face an enhanced civil liability or who will be subjected to a stigma if found liable, we require additional elements to be proven, such as knowledge, bad faith, conspiracy, intentional acts or misrepresentations. That should be sufficient to distinguish the various forms of civil liabilities. We should not continue to engage in this subtle difference, if any, in the burden of proofs. The courts realized this when abandoning the concept of ordinary versus gross negligence, and we should likewise abandon the concept of ordinary versus middle burden of proof.
I am authorized to state that Judge Ralph Adam Fine joins in this concurrence.