Nommensen v. American Continental Insurance

¶ 25. (concurring).

I agree with the lead opinion in this case, and as it particularly relates to this concurrence, Part 2.1 write separately because I am convinced that it is time for the supreme court to reevaluate the use of the phrase *141"reasonable certainty" as it exists in our standard instruction to the jury relating to the burden of proof for ordinary negligence, Wis JI — Civil 200. Wisconsin law requires that the plaintiff prove negligence by a preponderance of the evidence. See Mock v. Czemierys, 113 Wis. 2d 207, 211, 336 N.W.2d 188 (Ct. App. 1983). I am satisfied that using the term…