Opinion ID: 1160313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: board's liability in tort

Text: Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages because of the Board's malicious interference with his professional career. Liability, according to the plaintiff, arises from the Board's alleged action in seeking to carry out Albert's threat made when he told the plaintiff: When I get through with you there won't be a school in the country that will offer you a teaching job. The gravamen of this cause of action  as set out in plaintiff's brief  is the unlawful tortious interference by a third person with the right of another to dispose of his labor. [Emphasis supplied] Appropriately labeled, plaintiff is seeking relief for interference with prospective advantage, as opposed to interference with contractual relations. Prosser, Law of Torts, §§ 129 and 130 (4th Ed. 1971). These separate causes of action tend to merge, except that the latter is aimed at the protection of the probable expectancies of life, such as future contractual relations. Prosser, supra, § 130, at 950. The Court of Appeals of Washington, in Olson v. Scholes, 17 Wash. App. 383, 563 P.2d 1275, 1279-1280, summarized the elements of such actions  while at the same time implicitly indicating how the actions arise from common foundations  as follows: ... The theory advanced is that stated in Restatement of Torts § 766 (1939), as follows: ... [O]ne who, without a privilege to do so, induces or otherwise purposely causes a third person not to (a) perform a contract with another, or (b) enter into or continue a business relation with another is liable to the other for the harm caused thereby. The tort as defined in the Restatement is divided into two parts: (a) dealing with the cause of action arising when a third person induces a breach of contract, and (b) dealing with the cause of action which arises when a third person induces one person not to enter into a contract with another. The first subsection deals with present relationships, and the second with future relationships. The elements of the tort have been stated as: (1) the existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferor; (3) intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (4) resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted. See King v. Seattle, 84 Wash.2d 239, 525 P.2d 228 (1974); Scymanski v. Dufault, 80 Wash.2d 77, 491 P.2d 1050 (1971); Corinthian Corp. v. White & Bollard, Inc., 74 Wash.2d 50, 442 P.2d 950 (1968), and Calbom v. Knudtzon, 65 Wash.2d 157, 396 P.2d 148 (1964), inter alia. See, also, 45 Am.Jur.2d, Interference, §§ 50 and 51; and 86 C.J.S. Torts § 43. These theories, however, do not apply to actions between parties to an existing contract  they lie only against outsiders who interfere with the contractual expectancies of others. Olson v. Scholes, supra. An employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the alleged tortious acts, and, therefore, no recovery against the Board can be based upon the tort theory of interference with prospective advantage. We hold that the district court erred in entering a judgment against the Board on the basis of this theory. Indeed, we have said that a judgment will be affirmed on any legal ground appearing in the record. P & M Cattle Co. v. Holler, Wyo., 559 P.2d 1019, 1024, inter alia. We are unable, however, to find any such grounds in this case. See, Durst v. School District No. 2 of Niobrara County, 39 Wyo. 442, 273 P. 675, which precludes recovery of damages to the business reputation or for mental suffering by a wrongfully discharged school teacher. See generally, 78 C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 216. We reach no decision with respect to the propriety of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action against the Board, since that issue was not raised below. [3]