Opinion ID: 286871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The issue of Midwestern's affirmative misconduct was properly before the district court

Text: 48 Midwestern claims that it was deprived of the right to prepare for and defend against the charge of affirmative action constituting encouragement to Dobich and causing him to continue a course of action which he would not otherwise have pursued. Midwestern protests that at no time prior to this appeal did either party brief or argue the affirmative misconduct theory. Although the complaint only alleged silence and inaction, Midwestern's motion for a more definite statement said that the aiding and abetting by defendant intended to be asserted [in the complaint] is its failure to report the conduct of [Dobich] but the allegation is not so limited. Also, the affirmative acts relied on were in furtherance of a plan of nondisclosure as discussed above, so that questions decided on one theory of wrongdoing necessarily have a bearing on the other. 49 An indication of the notice that Midwestern had of the scope of proof is contained in the plaintiff's objections to the defendant's pre-trial statement of issues: the evidence may actually show a deliberate purpose on the part of the Defendant. At trial, defense counsel specifically inquired of witnesses whether they had engaged in action to aid and abet Dobich. Finally the trial judge's decision stated that: When trial commenced, both sides were well aware of the evidence upon which each side has based its claims or defenses. If in any respect the pleadings do not strictly conform to the evidence, no prejudice to either side could have resulted therefrom. We agree. 50 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.