History of the Connecticut Judicial Seal Home Home BannerBanner


 

 

 

 

 

   

3.15-4  Tortious Interference - Knowledge

Revised to January 1, 2008

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew of the plaintiff's (contract / business expectancy).  The defendant had to be actually aware that the plaintiff's (contract / business expectancy) existed.  The defendant did not have to be aware of the details, merely that the (contract / business expectancy) existed.  The plaintiff cannot recover for an unknowing interference.

Authority

Karabelas v. Munson, Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. CV 93 0064071 (March 8, 1994); Dairy Fresh, Inc. v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. 386770 (February 18, 1992); Steele v. J & S Metals, Inc., 32 Conn. Supp. 17, 19 (1974), quoting Snow v. West, 250 Ore. 114, 117, 440 P. 2d 864 (1968); 4 Restatement (Second) Torts § 766C (1979) (negligent interference is not sufficient).
 


 

Attorneys | Case Look-up | Courts | Directories | Educational Resources | E-Services | Español | FAQ's | Juror Information | Media | Opinions | Opportunities | Self-Help | Home

Common Legal Words | Contact Us | Site Map | Website Policies and Disclaimers

Copyright © 2011, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch