Neider, et al. v. Franklin
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01757-SCT Linked Case(s): 2001-CA-01757-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-13-2003 Opinion Author: Waller, J. Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Rendered in Part |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Breach of contract - Tortious interference with contractual relations - Employment contract - Interpretation of contract - Compensatory damages - Punitive damages Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., McRae and Smith, P.JJ., Cobb, Easley and Carlson, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz, J. Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Graves, J., Concurs in Part and Dissents in Part Without Separate Written Opinion. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-03-2001 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Robert H. Walker Disposition: Jury awarded the Appellee $50,000 in damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. Case Number: A2402 99-00221 |
|
| Note: | PITTMAN, C.J., McRAE AND SMITH, P.JJ., COBB, EASLEY AND CARLSON, JJ., CONCUR. DIAZ, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. GRAVES, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Robert Neider and Stan Bush |
FRANK P. WITTMANN, III
FRANK PHILIP WITTMANN, IV |
||
| Appellee: | Tom Franklin d/b/a Pure Gold | WILLIAM MICHAEL KULICK |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Breach of contract - Tortious interference with contractual relations - Employment contract - Interpretation of contract - Compensatory damages - Punitive damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tom Franklin filed an action for damages against Stan Bush for breach of contract and Robert Neider for tortious interference with contractual relations. A jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Franklin and awarded him $50,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. Bush and Neider appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Employment contract Bush argues that his contract with Franklin was unconscionable and ambiguous. This issue is procedurally barred, because Bush did not complaint about the contract at trial. Issue 2: Personal services contract Bush argues that the judge improperly allowed the interpretation of the personal services contract to go to the jury, because it was a question of law. It is a question of law for the court to determine whether a contract is ambiguous and, if not, enforce the contract as written. In the event of an ambiguity, the subsequent interpretation presents a question of fact for the jury. The contract contained a six-month noncompetition restriction which lent itself to differing interpretations. Therefore, it was properly submitted to the jury. Issue 3: Tortious interference with contractual relations Neider argues that Franklin failed to establish every element of tortious interference with contractual relations. To establish a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations, a plaintiff must prove that the acts were intentional and willful; they were calculated to cause damage to the plaintiffs in their lawful business; they were done with the unlawful purpose of causing damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendant, and actual damage and loss resulted. Neider knew that Bush was under contract with Franklin, but he had his attorney prepare a contract which listed Neider as president, and Bush as employee. In addition, Neider and his wife wrote 80 checks to Bush which sheds light on the extent of Neider's involvement with Bush. This was sufficient evidence to submit this claim to the jury. Issue 4: Damages Although Franklin requested $200,000 in compensatory damages, the jury only awarded $50,000. Franklin presented evidence of expenses incurred in finding a replacement for Bush and also requested $93,862 for substitute performers; $50,000 in booking decreases; and $112,084 in various travel, lodging and other out-of-pocket expenses. The jury’s award of $50,000 is not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. With regard to punitive damages, Neider argues that the evidence presented did not warrant a punitive damages instruction. In order for punitive damages to be awarded, the plaintiff must demonstrate a willful or malicious wrong or the gross, reckless disregard for the rights of others. There is no evidence in this case sufficient to establish the necessary level of intent for an award of punitive damages. Neider's activity reveals no sinister motive on his part to damage Franklin. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
