Skjold ▪ Barthel, P.A.
Campbell Mithun Tower
222 S. 9th St., Suite 3220
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612.746.2560
Why do I say first rate?
Because it looks at the special verdict form, something media coverage has ignored.
The post was written by Ben Skjold and and Carl Engstrom.
Have a look. Again, this link:
Hoff did, according to the Special Verdict Form, “intentionally interfere with Jerry Moore’s employment contract,” and “interfere with Jerry Moore’s prospective employment advantage.” This outcome of the jury’s verdict could be questionable upon review because it can be argued that the Special Verdict Form does not reflect the current state of the law.
Under Minnesota common law, tortious contract interference arises “when one ‘intentionally and improperly’ interferes.” Nordling v. NSP Co., 478 N.W.2d 498 (Minn. 1991) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (1979)). This second requirement, that the interference be “improper,” and thus not “justified,” is a required element to prove both tortious interference with an existing contract, and tortious interference with a prospective contract. United Wild Rice, Inc., v. Nelson, 313 N.W.2d 628, 633 (Minn. 1982).
This omission could be material in light of the jury’s determination that Johnny Northside’s statement wasn’t false, given that “[o]ne who intentionally causes a third person not to perform a contract or not to enter into a prospective contractual relation with another does not interfere improperly with the other’s contractual relation, by giving the third person truthful information.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772 (1979) ) (emphasis added) (cited with approval in Glass Serv. Co., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 530 N.W.2d 867, 871 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)).
The Nordling court was unanimous, and cited the divided Court of Appeals decision under review, here.
How that special verdict form, in that language (not saying "properly" or "improperly," i.e., not asking the jury to make that key factual determination of a necessary element), went to the jury was not clear in any reporting, including this item, where the authors noted they had no direct familiarity with the proof at trial. Whether any actual or implied defense waiver will be held to apply with regard to the form's wording is unclear to me.
(Should any reader care to read the cases these gentlement cited, I have made in the quote from their item, above, hotlinks out of each their three case citations.)
Skjold and Engstrom earned a hat tip by looking at the special verdict form and publishing. It would be helpful if it were posted online but the description for now suffices.
____________________
Last and separate information (possibly confused misinformation, possibly correct) the courageously anonymous Jordan Hawkman wrote as if a judgment had been entered with Hoff liable for Moore's attorney fees. My understanding is that the matter was taken under advisement by the trial judge, as would be the norm, and that closing motions have yet to be heard.
Any reader able to clarify case status at present is asked to provide reliable info via a comment. Comments are moderated. My guess is Jordan Hawkman is ill-informed.
_____________UPDATE__________
Ed Kohler, at the Deets, has added this Skjold-Engstrom item to his extensive list of trial and issue coverage. I did not see the ABA item listed there. I believe for policy reasons he declines to link to Don Allen or Jordan Hawkman posts (whatever the overlap might be between those sets).