Alternative pleading

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alternative pleading is a legal fiction permitting a party to argue multiple possibilities that may be mutually exclusive.

A pleading in the alternative sets forth multiple claims or defenses either hypothetically or alternatively, such that if one of the claims or defenses are held invalid or insufficient, the other claims or defenses should still have to be answered.

One example, submitting an injury complaint alleging that the harm to the defendant caused by the plaintiff was so outrageous that it must have either been intended as a malicious attack or, if not, must have been due to gross negligence.

This doctrine is sometimes summarized somewhat tongue-in-cheek with examples such as (for damage to a borrowed bicyle): "I never even saw or heard of that bicycle until the court notice; the plaintiff didn't lend it to me, he gave it to me; it isn't damaged; and it was already damaged when I got it." Normally such arguments would seem to cancel each other on their face, however, legally "even if" and "anyway" clauses need not be argued; mutually exclusive defenses can be advanced without excuses for their relationship to each other. (Although of course jurists might be influenced by dual defenses such as "I never borrowed it" and "it was already damaged".)

[edit] Civil Law

The United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [1] state "...A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternately or hypothetically, either in one count or defense or in separate counts or defenses. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as the party has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal, equitable, or maritime grounds..."

[edit] Criminal Law

Because pleading in the alternative is generally permitted in criminal cases, a defendant may claim to have not committed the crime itself, but at the same time may claim that if the defendant had committed the crime, the act was excused for a reason such as insanity or intoxication, or was justified due to provocation or self defense. However, a jury will naturally be suspicious if a defendant claims the benefit of (for example) alibi and self defence.