History of the Connecticut Judicial Seal Home Home BannerBanner


 

 

 

 

 

   

3.15-6  Tortious Interference - Actual Loss

Revised to January 1, 2008

If you find that the defendant tortiously interfered with the plaintiff's <insert contract or business expectancy>, then you must decide if the plaintiff has proven that (he/she/it) suffered an actual loss as a result of that interference.  The plaintiff must prove that but for the tortious interference, there was a reasonable probability that the plaintiff would have entered into a (contract / business relationship with <name of contracting party> or made a profit from <identify source of profit>.  The mere possibility of entering into a contract or making a profit is not enough.  However, the plaintiff need not prove the specific amount of the loss in order to establish that (he/she/it) suffered an actual loss.

Authority

Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20, 29-30 n.8 (2000) (approving instruction that required "reasonable degree of certainty"); Goldman v. Feinberg, 130 Conn. 671, 674-76 (1944) (holding that a "reasonable probability" is required); DiNapoli v. Cooke, 43 Conn. App. 419, 428 (1996) (requiring a "reasonable probability"); Selby v. Pelletier, 1 Conn. App. 320, 323 (1984) (holding that "reasonable probability" of making a profit is required).
 


 

Attorneys | Case Look-up | Courts | Directories | Educational Resources | E-Services | Español | FAQ's | Juror Information | Media | Opinions | Opportunities | Self-Help | Home

Common Legal Words | Contact Us | Site Map | Website Policies and Disclaimers

Copyright © 2011, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch