The doctrine of election of remedies involves a choice between different forms of redress afforded by law for the same injury, or different forms of proceeding on the same cause of action. Stated another way, election of remedies is the act of choosing between different remedies allowed by law on the same state of facts. Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises, Inc., 283 S.C. 425, 323 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App.1984), rev'd on other grounds, 287 S.C. 303, 338 S.E.2d 323 (1985). Its purpose is to prevent double redress for a single wrong.

The doctrine of election of remedies involves a choice between different forms of redress afforded by law for the same injury, or different forms of proceeding on the same cause of action. Jones v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 318 S.C. 171, 456 S.E.2d 429, 431 (S.C.Ct.App. 1995) (citing Boardman v. Lovett Enter., Inc., 283 S.C. 425, 323 S.E.2d 784 (S.C.Ct.App. 1984), rev'd on other grounds, 287 S.C. 303, 338 S.E.2d 323 (1985)). Its purpose is to prevent double redress for a single wrong.

We express no opinion on the propriety of a charge based on Section 323(a) as it relates to physician's duty of care. That issue was not decided by the Court of Appeals, and is therefore not before us on certiorari. Because it reversed on this issue, the Court of Appeals did not reach the remaining exceptions raised by respondent on direct appeal. While remand to the Court of Appeals would be appropriate, Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises, Inc., 287 S.C. 303, 338 S.E.2d 323 (1985), we have considered the remaining issues and find them to be without merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the jury verdict is reinstated.

The doctrine of election of remedies involves a choice between different forms of redress afforded by law for the same injury, or different forms of proceeding on the same cause of action. Stated another way, election of remedies is the act of choosing between different remedies allowed by law on the same state of facts. Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises, Inc., 283 S.C. 425, 323 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App. 1984), rev'd on other grounds, 287 S.C. 303, 338 S.E.2d 323 (1985). Its purpose is to prevent double redress for a single wrong.

The issue is one of election of remedies, not election between causes of action. Election of remedies is the act of choosing between different remedies allowed by law on the same state of facts. Harper v. Ethridge, 290 S.C. 112, 348 S.E.2d 374 (Ct.App. 1986); Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises, 283 S.C. 425, 323 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App. 1984), rev'd on other grounds, 287 S.C. 303, 338 S.E.2d 323 (1985). Election between causes of action, on the other hand, is the device formerly used to require the plaintiff to pursue only one theory of recovery when his complaint stated distinct causes so repugnant that the assertion of one necessarily constituted an election and precluded assertion of the other.

As we view the matter, the issue raised is one of election of remedies, not election between causes of action. Cf., Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises, Inc., 283 S.C. 425, 323 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App. 1984), rev'd on othergrounds, 287 S.C. 303, 338 S.E.2d 323 (1985). Election of remedies involves a choice between two or more different and coexisting modes of procedure or forms of relief afforded by law for the same injury. Save Charleston Foundationv. Murray, 286 S.C. 170, 333 S.E.2d 60 (Ct.App. 1985).

In our original opinion we held the circuit judge properly required the limited partners to elect between equitable and legal relief. Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises,Inc., 283 S.C. 425, 323 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App. 1984). This court's opinion was overruled by the Supreme Court on other grounds. Boardman, 287 S.C. 303, 338 S.E.2d 323 (1985). Our decision regarding election of remedies was not part of the petition for certiorari. Thus we find this issue has been fully adjudicated and refuse to consider it here.