McCormick v. Kopmann - know of the answer to the fact that...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
McCormick v. Kopmann 161 N.E. 2d 720 (1959) Fact: Operative Facts: A widow’s husband died in a car accident. She has 2 contradicting counts on her plead, Count I which states that the truck that crashed into the car went into the center lane and the husband was not negligent. Count 4 was that bar the husband was in right before that supplied him liquor and was proximity linked to the cause of death. Issue: Whether the two contradicting alternatives should have been the basis of a motion to dismiss Rule: A person may plead in the alterative, even if it is contradicting, as long as they do not
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: know of the answer to the fact that is cause of the alternative Rational: In the case at bar, the widow was unsure of the drinks, and whether that would have had him to drive negligently. She found during discovery that it was only 1 drink, and through testimonies, the drink did not cause him to be negligent. So the Jury agreed with count 1. Holding: A person may argue in the alternative, even if the alternative is a direct contradiction to the original claim, as long as the fact is not truly known by the party raising the alterative. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online