Home Table of Contents

WPI 352.02.01 Tortious Interference With Business Expectancy—Burden of Proof on the Issues—With...

6A WAPRAC WPI 352.02.01Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Civil

6A Wash. Prac., Wash. Pattern Jury Instr. Civ. WPI 352.02.01 (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 352.02.01 Tortious Interference With Business Expectancy—Burden of Proof on the Issues—With Affirmative Defenses
To recover on a claim of tortious interference with business [relationship] [or] [expectancy],(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)had a business relationship or expectancy with a probability of future economic benefit for(name of plaintiff);
(2) That(name of defendant)knew of the existence of that business [relationship] [or] [expectancy];
(3) That(name of defendant)intentionally induced or caused the termination of the business [relationship] [or] [expectancy];
(4) That(name of defendant's)interference was for an improper purpose or by improper means, as defined later in these instructions;
(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 propositions:
(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
In a tortious interference case that does not involve inducing or causing breach of a valid contract, use this instruction, rather than WPI 352.01 (Tortious Interference with Contract—Burden of Proof on the Issues—No Affirmative Defense). If there are no affirmative defenses, use WPI 352.02 (Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy—Burden of Proof on the Issues—No Affirmative Defense), instead of this instruction.
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).
When appropriate to the facts of the case, this instruction may be used with WPI 352.03 (Tortious Interference—Improper Purpose—Improper Means—Definitions), WPI 352.05 (Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy—Affirmative Defense—Competition), or WPI 352.06 (Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy—Affirmative Defense—Financial Interest).
COMMENT
See the Comment to WPI 352.02 (Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy—Burden of Proof on the Issues—No Affirmative Defense) regarding the plaintiff's burden.
The Washington Supreme Court held in Pleas v. City of Seattle, 112 Wn.2d 794, 804, 774 P.2d 1158 (1989), that “matters of privilege and justification continue to be affirmative defenses to be raised by the defendant.”
The basic issue raised by the assertion of the defense is whether, under the circumstances of the particular case, the interferor's conduct is justifiable, bearing in mind such factors as the nature of the interferor's conduct, the character of the expectancy with which the conduct interferes, the relationship between the various parties, the interest sought to be advanced by the interferor, and the social desirability of protecting the expectancy or the interferor's freedom of action.
Calbom v. Knudtzon, 65 Wn.2d 157, 163, 396 P.2d 148 (1964).
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), WPI 352.05 (Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy—Affirmative Defense—Competition), and WPI 352.06 (Tortious Interference with Business Expectancy—Affirmative Defense—Financial Interest).
An extended discussion of tortious interference can be found in another volume of Washington Practice. See DeWolf & Allen, 16A Washington Practice, Tort Law and Practice §§ 23:2–:6 (5th ed.).
[Current as of December 2020.]
End of Document