Court Opinion

ID: 9509731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:49:05.855832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:52.580380
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE
respectfully dissents.
Buttrey undisputedly had the right to exclude Farrington, an admitted thief, from its stores. By its interpretation of one element of Farrington’s cause of action, the majority has kept this action alive in spite of that clear fact.
The majority interprets the third element of a cause of action for tortious interference with business relations as requiring proof that the acts were done without either right or justifiable cause on the part of the actor. I believe that element is correctly interpreted as requiring proof that the acts were done with neither right nor justifiable cause; i.e., where the acts were done either by right or with justifiable cause, the tort does not lie.
I would rule that because Buttrey undisputedly had the right to exclude Farrington from its stores, there was a failure of proof by Farrington on that element. I would therefore rule that summmary judgment was proper.
JUSTICE WEBER and JUSTICE GRAY join in the dissent of CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE.