Law Practice
Jun. 6, 2001
Cause and Effect
California plaintiffs' counsel, in complaints filed on behalf of their clients, often allege multiple theories of recovery that are sometimes inconsistent. A common example is the pleading of causes of action for both negligent and intentional torts arising from the same nucleus of facts. While this strategy sometimes may be reasonable, plaintiffs' counsel should take note that it is not without peril and the potential for personal liability.
California plaintiffs' counsel, in complaints filed on behalf of their clients, often allege multiple theories of recovery that are sometimes inconsistent. A common example is the pleading of causes of action for both negligent and intentional torts arising from the same nucleus of facts. While this st...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In