AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
![]() ![]() The defendant argued that knowing participation could not support the jury’s finding of tortious interference because there was no separate question on that issue. The court held that breach of fiduciary duty is an intentional tort, and also held that when “a third party knowingly participates in the breach of duty of a fiduciary, such third party becomes a joint tortfeasor with the fiduciary and is liable as such.” The court of appeals held that to prevail on a claim for tortious interference, a plaintiff must prove the following: “(1) there was a reasonable probability that the plaintiff would have entered into a business relationship with a third party (2) the defendant either acted with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship from occurring or knew the interference was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of the conduct (3) the defendant’s conduct was independently tortious or unlawful (4) the interference proximately caused the plaintiff injury and (5) the plaintiff suffered actual damage or loss as a result.” Id. ![]() The court then turned to the tortious interference finding. The court of appeals affirmed the breach of fiduciary duty finding against the employee as he formed his company and contacted his former employer’s customers before leaving his employ. The jury found that the defendants tortiously interfered with the former employer’s relationships with customers, and the defendants appealed. App.-Beaumont September 22, 2016, no pet. Filter Res., Inc., a former employer sued a former employee and the employee’s new business for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference related to the employee’s competition with the former employer after leaving its employ. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |