Foos v. Terminix & Zurich America Insurance
Supreme Court of Kansas
1Dissent
Nuss, J.:
dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for several reasons.
First, the legislative histoiy cited by the majority reveals that while in 1993 the legislature further diluted the employer s standard of proof, it also introduced some specific standards and conditions concerning how employers could prove alcohol’s “contribution” to an employee’s injury. It amended the statute to provide a level for conclusive presumption of impairment (.04%) and six specific requirements for admitting a chemical test into evidence to prove that presumptive impairment. L. 1993, ch.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Vernonia School District 47J v. ActonSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Injured Workers of Kansas v. FranklinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1997
- Jones v. Continental Can Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1996
- National Gypsum Co. v. Kansas Employment Security Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Kansas · 1989
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.