Opinion ID: 713020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intent and Proximate Cause

Text: 13 Intentional interference does not require an intent to injure, only that the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. John Carlo Tex., Inc., 843 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex.1992) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A (1965)). 2 Substantially certain requires that the interference be incidental to the actor's independent purpose and desire but known to him to be a necessary consequence of his action. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. John Carlo Tex., Inc., 813 S.W.2d 613, 619 (Tex.Ct.App.1991), rev'd on other grounds, 843 S.W.2d 470 (Tex.1992) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 cmt. j. (1965)). In short, Wardlaw had to prove that Anheuser intended to interfere with Wardlaw's employment or was substantially certain that such interference would result from Scheetz's telephone call to Dailey. Wardlaw also had to prove that such interference was a proximate cause of Wardlaw's termination. See Travis v. City of Mesquite, 830 S.W.2d 94, 98 (Tex.1992) (proximate cause consists of cause in fact and foreseeability). 14 Although we perceive the issue to be close, an examination of the evidence reveals that the facts and inferences would permit reasonable jurors to conclude that Anheuser's interference was intentional. The evidence presented raised a conflict sufficient to create a jury question on the issue of intent. See Boeing, 411 F.2d at 375. 15 Wardlaw relies on two principle pieces of evidence to support his claim of tortious interference. One piece of evidence involves a phone call between Scheetz and Dailey that occurred in March, approximately two or three weeks before the phone call regarding Wardlaw's dissemination of confidential information. During this conversation, Scheetz mentioned that he had heard that Wardlaw was interested in a position with Stone. Wardlaw argues that Scheetz released this information despite Wardlaw's request in his letter to Stone that his interest in a consulting position not be betrayed. The evidence indicates, however, that Scheetz's disclosure was an offhand comment in the course of a regular conversation with Dailey, made long before Scheetz was aware of the letter to Stone. 3 16 The second piece of evidence Wardlaw points to is the comment of Jerry Lamm, Anheuser's group manager for packaging, when Cory informed him that Wardlaw had been terminated: I hope Anheuser-Busch's involvement with the letter to Richard Stone had nothing to do with it. Lamm also admitted that upon hearing about Wardlaw's termination, he knew immediately that Wardlaw would not have been fired if Scheetz had not called Inland. 17 Although Lamm and Scheetz each testified that Anheuser's sole purpose was to prevent future dissemination of the confidential information, Scheetz admitted during trial that he never contacted Wardlaw to prevent future dissemination, nor did he request that Stone destroy its copy. Scheetz conceded that if he had made such a request, Stone would have complied. Various Inland employees testified that Anheuser did not request that Inland prevent further dissemination by destroying all copies of the letter. After Wardlaw was terminated, Scheetz and Lamm did nothing more to prevent the dissemination. 18 As to proximate cause, Anheuser argues that Scheetz's phone call was not a proximate cause of Wardlaw's termination; rather, Wardlaw's action in giving the letter to Raine and his violation of Inland's anti-trust policies caused his termination. Anheuser asserts that it did not turn the letter over to anyone at Inland, did not reveal or threaten to reveal the letter to Inland executives, and exerted no pressure over Inland to terminate Wardlaw. Various Inland employees testified that Wardlaw was not terminated as a result of any pressure from Anheuser, but because he had violated Inland's own policies and used information and contacts that he obtained while an employee of Inland to Inland's possible detriment. 19 Wardlaw points to the two phone calls from Scheetz to Dailey as proximate causes of his termination. During the first phone call, Scheetz mentioned that Wardlaw was applying for a job with Stone. The record indicates, however, that this phone call was not a proximate cause of Wardlaw's termination. Dailey described Scheetz's comment as Oh, by the way, I hear through the grapevine that Dudley is looking for a job at Stone Container. Dailey then asked Wardlaw about his job search, and Wardlaw admitted he was seeking a consulting position so that he could spend more time on an invention. Dailey testified that he did not tell anyone else at Inland that Wardlaw was seeking a position at Stone. Wardlaw presented no evidence that this phone call formed the basis of his termination. Wardlaw has thus failed to carry his burden of proof to establish that this phone call was a proximate cause of his damages. 20 Wardlaw correctly asserts, however, that there was some evidence that the second phone call, which concerned the release of confidential information, was a proximate cause of his termination. The phone call was a substantial factor in bringing about Wardlaw's termination, without which the harm would not have occurred. See Travis, 830 S.W.2d at 98. 21 Moreover, it was foreseeable that this phone call could result in interference with Wardlaw's employment relationship with Inland. Scheetz testified that he informed Dailey about the letter because he expected Dailey to ensure that the release of information would cease. He also stated that he was not surprised when he heard that Wardlaw had met with his supervisor, Raine. Scheetz also admitted that informing a company that its employee has done something wrong is a serious matter for the employee accused of the wrongdoing. In addition, Lamm testified that upon learning that Wardlaw had been terminated, he knew instantly that Wardlaw would not have been terminated if Scheetz had not called Inland. Evidence admitted at trial indicated that Anheuser was upset about the release of confidential information. Jim Cory, Inland's vice president of sales, wrote a memo on April 4, 1990, which stated that Anheuser had informed Dailey that it was not very happy about the letter. 22 We agree with Anheuser that the evidence of intent and proximate cause 4 is much less compelling in the instant cause than the fact scenarios presented in the various Texas cases. See Victoria Bank & Trust, 811 S.W.2d at 940 (bank retained security interest after plaintiff paid off secured debt and then asserted the security lien when plaintiff attempted to cash a draft at the bank, refusing to pay until plaintiff agreed to deduct $40,000 from the draft proceeds to apply to a disputed note); Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex.1989) (oil company directed contractor to fire plaintiff because plaintiff had once sued oil company); Sakowitz, Inc. v. Steck, 669 S.W.2d 105, 107 (Tex.1984), overruled in part by Sterner, 767 S.W.2d at 690 (Sakowitz wrote letter to former employee's new employer asking that it honor the non-competition agreement former employee signed by firing employee); John Carlo, 813 S.W.2d at 616-17 (plaintiff sued telephone company for delays in performance of plaintiff's contract with the city resulting from company's failure to timely relocate its utilities, despite being informed that relocation was necessary); Exxon Corp. v. Allsup, 808 S.W.2d 648, 651 (Tex.Ct.App.1991, writ denied) (gas company, which was aware of employee's lifetime contract as guard for ranch, told subcontractor not to rehire employee at some point after it took over operations of ranch's gate). 23 It is not this Court's function, however, to weigh conflicting evidence and inferences, or to assess the credibility of the witnesses. See Boeing, 411 F.2d at 375. Rather, our role is merely to ensure that a substantial conflict existed in the evidence to create a jury question. Id. Scheetz's knowledge that some action would be taken in response to his phone call, his admission that informing an employer that an employee had engaged in wrongdoing could have detrimental effects on the employee, his failure to request that all copies of the letter be destroyed, Lamm's statement that he hoped Anheuser's involvement with the letter did not cause Wardlaw's termination, and Lamm's testimony that he knew as soon as he heard about the termination that Wardlaw would not have been fired if Scheetz had not called Inland provide some evidence from which a jury could conclude that the elements of intent and proximate cause were satisfied. 24 Viewing the evidence and the permissible inferences to be drawn from it, we are loathe to declare that under such circumstances no reasonable jury could have found that Anheuser intentionally interfered with Wardlaw's employment and that its actions proximately caused Wardlaw's termination. See Boeing, 411 F.2d at 374. Accordingly, we reject Anheuser's attack on the intent and proximate cause elements of Wardlaw's alleged cause of action.