Opinion ID: 585287
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Identification of Conduct by Individual Defendants

Text: 26 The final argument advanced by the Defendants is that, even though the corporate Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged by American, there was no proof that the individual Defendants personally committed any of the alleged acts. Accordingly, the Defendants argue, the district court erred in granting summary judgment against those individual Defendants on the issue of liability. We disagree. 27 It is well settled that if an officer or agent of a corporation directs or participates actively in the commission of a tortious act or an act from which a tort necessarily follows or may reasonably be expected to follow, he is personally liable to a third person for injuries proximately resulting therefrom. Lobato v. Pay Less Drug Stores, Inc., 261 F.2d 406, 408-09 (10th Cir.1958). 12 Specific direction or sanction of, or active participation or cooperation in, a positively wrongful act of commission or omission which operates to the injury or prejudice of the complaining party will subject an officer or agent of a corporation to liability for the tort of the corporation. Id. at 409. 28 It is clear that each of the individual Defendants directed or participated actively in the corporate Defendants' activities. 13 The tortious conduct of the corporate Defendants pervaded their business. That is, the businesses were set up to interfere with known contracts between the airlines and their frequent flyers and to misappropriate the airlines' services through deceptive means. 14 Thus, the individual Defendants' direction of and active participation in the business of the corporate Defendants is sufficient to subject them to liability for the tortious conduct of the corporate Defendants. 15 29 Thus, American has adequately demonstrated that it is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability for tortious interference with contract and unfair competition. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment on these issues by the district court and the issuance by that court of a permanent injunction.