Court Opinion

ID: 9744270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:59:02.164779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:48.119830
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WEBBER, specially concurring: I concur that count II of the second amended complaint states a cause of action in tort under the rule of Moorman and should be reinstated. However, I also believe that a word of caution is in order. Under section 2 — 613 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 110, par. 2 — 613) alternative causes of action may be pleaded even though inconsistent. It is thus possible to plead both contract and tort in the same complaint, but in different counts. Knox College v. Celotex Corp. (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 407, 430 N.E.2d 976. This becomes a delicate matter for the trial court to handle. In this case, while the contract theory and the tort theory are stated, in different counts, the complaint as a whole does not make clear that these are alternatives. Obviously the plaintiff is entitled, if he prevails, to only one recovery. I would require as a condition of reinstatement of the amended count II that the plaintiff again amend to state clearly and unequivocally that the legal theories of recovery are in the alternative.