Taylor v. Sugar Hollow Park, Inc.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Taylor v. Sugar Hollow Park, Inc.

467 A.2d 935, 1 Conn. App. 38, 1983 Conn. App. LEXIS 86

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedOctober 13, 1983

Docket(2308)

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 467 A.2d 935 (Taylor v. Sugar Hollow Park, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Sugar Hollow Park, Inc., 467 A.2d 935, 1 Conn. App. 38, 1983 Conn. App. LEXIS 86 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Borden, J.

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 1 on several grounds, one of which is dispositive.

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 plaintiffs 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 *40 there was a reasonable probability that there would not be profits from the expected contract are fatal to her cause of action.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment for the defendant.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1

This appeal, originally filed in the Supreme Court, was transferred to this court. Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1983, No. 83-29, § 2 (c).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Borden, J.

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 1 on several grounds, one of which is dispositive.

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 plaintiffs 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 *40 there was a reasonable probability that there would not be profits from the expected contract are fatal to her cause of action.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment for the defendant.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1

This appeal, originally filed in the Supreme Court, was transferred to this court. Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1983, No. 83-29, § 2 (c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 A.2d 935, 1 Conn. App. 38, 1983 Conn. App. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-sugar-hollow-park-inc-connappct-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack