Summary
In Taylor v. Sugar Hollow Park, Inc., supra, 1 Conn. App. 39, the plaintiff sought damages on allegations that the defendant had tortiously interfered with an existing business relationship.
Summary of this case from Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc.Opinion
(2308)
The plaintiff sought damages on allegations that the defendant had tortiously interfered with a business relationship she had with a third party. The trial court, although it concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove that she had sustained actual damages, nevertheless rendered judgment awarding her $3500. On the defendant's appeal from that judgment, held that since proof of actual loss is an essential element of the tort of unlawful interference with business relations, the trial court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff.
Argued October 13, 1983
Decision released November 29, 1983
Action to recover damages for tortious interference with business relations, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield and tried to the court, Ryan, J.; judgment for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant. Error; judgment directed.
Alan R. Spirer, for the appellant (defendant).
Raphael Korff for the appellee (plaintiff).
The plaintiff sued the defendant for tortious interference with a business expectancy. The trial court found for the plaintiff and rendered judgment in the amount of $3500. The defendant appealed on several grounds, one of which is dispositive.
This appeal, originally filed in the Supreme Court, was transferred to this court. Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1983, No. 83-29, 2(c).
It is not necessary to recite all the facts found by the trial court. Suffice it to say that after finding that the defendant had tortiously interfered with the plaintiff's expectancy of entering into a contract with a third party, the court went on to find that the plaintiff offered no credible evidence that she had suffered actual damage; and that there was a reasonable probability that the expected contract would not produce profits. Nonetheless, the trial court awarded the plaintiff $3500 damages. This was error.
Unlike other torts in which liability gives rise to nominal damages even in the absence of proof of actual loss; see Riccio v. Abate, 176 Conn. 415, 418-19, 407 A.2d 1005 (1979); it is an essential element of the tort of unlawful interference with business relations that the plaintiff suffered actual loss. Herman v. Endriss, 187 Conn. 374, 377, 446 A.2d 9 (1982); Harry A. Finman Son, Inc. v. Connecticut Truck Trailer Service Co., 169 Conn. 407, 415, 363 A.2d 86 (1975); Goldman v. Feinberg, 130 Conn. 671, 37 A.2d 355 (1944); 3 Dooley, Modern Tort Law 44.03, p. 216; Prosser, Torts (4th Ed.) 130, p. 953. The trial court's findings that the plaintiff did not prove actual damage and that there was a reasonable probability that there would not be profits from the expected contract are fatal to her cause of action.