Home Table of Contents

WPI 352.01.01 Tortious Interference With Contract—Burden of Proof on the Issues—With Affirmativ...

6A WAPRAC WPI 352.01.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 352.01.01 (7th ed.)

Washington Practice Series TM

Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

April 2022 Update

Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions

Part XVIII. Commercial Litigation

Chapter 352. Tortious Interference With Economic Relations

WPI 352.01.01 Tortious Interference With Contract—Burden of Proof on the Issues—With Affirmative Defenses

To recover on a claim of tortious interference with contract,(name of plaintiff)has the burden of proving each of the following propositions:

(1) That at the time of the conduct at issue,(name of plaintiff)was a party to a valid contract with(name of contracted party)[to(state purpose of contract)];

(2) That(name of defendant)knew of the existence of that contract;

(3) That(name of defendant)[intentionally induced or caused(name of contracted party)to breach the contract with(name of plaintiff)] [prevented(name of plaintiff)'s performance of the contract] [caused(name of plaintiff)'s performance to be more expensive or burdensome];

(4) That(name of defendant)'s interference was for an improper purpose or by improper means, as defined later in these instructions; and

(5) That the conduct of(name of defendant)was a proximate cause of damages to(name of plaintiff).

To establish a defense of(identify affirmative defense), (name of defendant)has the burden of proving the following proposition(s):

(Here set forth the necessary elements of any affirmative defenses at issue.)

If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that(name of plaintiff)has established each of the elements of the tortious interference claim, and(name of defendant)has not established the elements of(identify affirmative defense), then your verdict should be for(name of plaintiff). On the other hand, if one or more of the elements of tortious interference claim has not been proved, or if(name of defendant)has established the elements of(identify affirmative defense), then your verdict should be for(name of defendant).

NOTE ON USE

This instruction is designed for use in a tortious interference with contract case with affirmative defenses. For a tortious interference with contract case without an affirmative defense use WPI 352.01 (Tortious Interference with Contract—Burden of Proof on the Issues—No Affirmative Defense) instead of this instruction. See the Note on Use to WPI 352.02 (Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy—Burden of Proof on the Issues—No Affirmative Defense) for discussion of instructions for a case based on tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy that has not ripened into a contract.

Use bracketed material as applicable. Use the bracketed phrase about inducement or causation of breach of contract when it is supported by the evidence. Use the bracketed phrases about prevention of performance or imposition of additional burden or expense of performance when they are supported by the evidence.

Use this instruction with WPI 21.01 (Meaning of Burden of Proof) and with an instruction defining proximate cause—WPI 15.01 (the traditional instruction) or WPI 15.01.01 (the alternative instruction).

Use this instruction with WPI 352.03 (Tortious Interference—Improper Purpose—Improper Means—Definitions) and WPI 352.04 (Tortious Interference with Contract—Affirmative Defense—Legally Protected Interest) when appropriate to the case.

Do not use this instruction with WPI 352.05 (Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy—Affirmative Defense—Competition) or WPI 352.06 (Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy—Affirmative Defense—Financial Interest).

If the alleged interference is with a contract that is terminable at will, use WPI 352.02 (Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy—Burden of Proof on the Issues—No Affirmative Defense) or WPI 352.02.01 (Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy—Burden of Proof on the Issues—With Affirmative Defenses), instead of this instruction. See the Comment to WPI 352.02 (Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy—Burden of Proof on the Issues—No Affirmative Defense).

COMMENT

This instruction has been modified for this edition to allow for prevention of performance, imposition of additional burden, or expense of performance claims based on the evidence presented during trial.

See the Comment to WPI 352.01 (Tortious Interference with Contract—Burden of Proof on the Issues—No Affirmative Defense) regarding the plaintiff's burden.

The Washington Supreme Court in Pleas v. City of Seattle, 112 Wn.2d 794, 804, 774 P.2d 1158 (1989), held that “matters of privilege and justification continue to be affirmative defenses to be raised by the defendant.” See also Moore v. Com. Aircraft Interiors, LLC, 168 Wn. App, 502, 509, 278 P.3d 197 (2012) (“Only after the plaintiff establishes the five elements of the tort does the burden shift to the defendant to show, as an affirmative defense, that its interference was either privileged or justified.”).

With regard to the defendant's burden, and whether matters should be treated as affirmative defenses or an aspect of improper interference, see the Comments to WPI 352.03 (Tortious Interference—Improper Purpose—Improper Means—Definitions) and WPI 352.04 (Tortious Interference with Contract—Affirmative Defense—Legally Protected Interest).

An extended discussion of tortious interference can be found in DeWolf & Allen, 16A Washington Practice, Tort Law and Practice §§ 23:2–:6 (5th ed.).

[Current as of December 2020.]

End of Document