Opinion ID: 1744499
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Election of Theories

Text: Cass and World assert that it was error to allow the case to go to the jury on multiple theories, and that the trial court should have required Butz to elect one theory of recovery. Rules 8(a) and 18(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., generally allow a party to plead multiple claims against another party. In the specific context of a failure-to-warn case premised on both negligence and strict liability, we have held: Although the authorities disagree over this issue, we believe that recovery sought under a negligent failure-to-warn theory and recovery sought under a products-liability theory of marketing a product which is defective and unreasonably dangerous because it is not accompanied by adequate warnings are two separate and distinct theories of recovery. Thus the trial court must instruct on each where there is evidence to support both theories. Mauch, supra, 345 N.W.2d at 345. The trial court did not err in refusing to require Butz to elect one theory of recovery.