History of the Connecticut Judicial Seal Home Home BannerBanner


 

 

 

 

 

   

3.15-5  Tortious Interference - Interference Must be Tortious

Revised to January 1, 2008

The plaintiff must show that the defendant interfered with <insert contract or business expectancy> and that the interference was tortious.  Interference is tortious if it is wrongful.  Not every act that disturbs a (contract / business expectancy) is wrongful.  For example, competing for the same business is not by itself wrongful.  To prove that the interference was tortious, the plaintiff must show that when the defendant interfered, (he/she/it) <include only those that are claimed:>

  • engaged in (fraud / misrepresentation / intimidation / molestation

  • acted maliciously.  To act maliciously means to act intentionally without justification. 

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant did not have justification for the interference.

Authority

Daley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 249 Conn. 766, 805-06 (1999); Robert S. Weiss and Associates, Inc. v. Wiederlight, 208 Conn. 525, 536-37 (1988); Blake v. Levy, 191 Conn. 257, 261-62 (1983); R an W Hat Shop, Inc. v. Sculley, 98 Conn. 1, 13-18 (1922).  See 4 Restatement (Second) Torts § 766 and comment s; §§ 767-768 (1979).

Notes

If the plaintiff claims that fraud or misrepresentation is the tortious activity, the court should instruct on the elements of fraud or misrepresentation.  See Fraud or Intentional Misrepresentation, Instruction 3.16-2.
 


 

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