Court Opinion

ID: 9859322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 19:41:49.226335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:18:59.351918
License: Public Domain

LeGRAND, Justice
(dissenting).
Although I agree this case must be reversed, I disagree with the majority in. its decision to remand for a new trial. I would, instead, dismiss plaintiffs’ petition.
The case was fully tried, and successfully defended, on plaintiffs’ own pleaded theory. Now the majority, while conceding plaintiffs failed to prove that claim, says they should have a second opportunity to prove a different one.
■To me this is indeed a strange result. Ordinarily the parties choose the issues. Courts then try cases on those issues. Any other rule will surely lead to judicial chaos;
In the present case plaintiffs chose— wrongly — how they wanted to try their claim. It was apparent throughout the trial that defendants were challenging their choice of remedy. Yet at no time did plaintiffs seek to amend to assert the theory this court now says they should have pursued. Plaintiffs simply elected not to go that route.
Furthermore the majority’s apparent reliance on notice pleading seems to me to be misplaced. Pleading precedes, not follows, trial and judgment. This court should not give posthumous effect to notice pleading by applying it after the case is over when it was not resorted to while the case was alive. Plaintiffs forfeited their right to rely on notice pleading by setting out the specific basis of their claim. They should be held to their failure of proof.