Court Opinion

ID: 9763079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:36:28.234147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:39.285557
License: Public Domain

ON ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR REHEARING OR FOR TRANSFER
HOGAN, Judge.
The plaintiff has filed a vigorous motion for rehearing or for transfer. At one point, the plaintiff agrees that a prima facie tort cannot be submitted with another theory against the same defendant, but argues that a case under the prima facie tort doctrine was made.
To the extent the motion is a criticism of the manner in which the opinion is rationalized, it may be justified. We wrote as we did because we believe it to be unsound practice to suggest to a plaintiff what the elements of his case are.
We did not, however, overlook other aspects of the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s case. Our reading of the record discloses no element of malice; so far as we are able to ascertain from the record, defendant had only a profit motive in granting an additional franchise. Haley testified that he believed defendant granted the franchise to further its own business interests. The record also shows that in response to Haley’s objection, Tony Van Ingen and Bill Baird, president of Vakuum Vulk, another retreading process franchised by Bandag, attempted to mollify plaintiff by offering to franchise that process rather than the Bandag method to Sparks and Collins. Inasmuch as the record shows beyond cavil that the defendant had only a profit motive in granting the additional franchise, the element of intentionally seeking to injure plaintiffs, essential to a cause of action for prima facie tort, is lacking. See, e.g., Fifty *556States Management Corporation, Etc. v. Niagara Permanent Savings and Loan Association, 58 A.D.2d 177, 896 N.Y.S.2d 925, 926-927[3] (1977); Benton v. Kennedy-Van Saun Mfg. & Eng. Corp., 2 A.D.2d 27, 152 N.Y.S.2d 955, 957-958 (1956). Uncertainty surrounds the meaning of the “intent to injure” required by Porter; some student materials and the Restatement suggest several approaches. Note, supra, 47 Mo.L.Rev. at 557-558. Whatever order of “malice” or “intent” should be required, we find none here. To reiterate, it might have been better to rationalize our opinion on this ground. We did not do so because it seemed unfair to saddle plaintiff with a burden not apparent from the cases when it undertook to prove its case.
Admitting that we are profoundly dissatisfied with the concept of “prima facie tort” because we regard it as unworkable, we adhere to our opinion. The motion for rehearing is denied; the application to transfer is denied. If plaintiff believes it is aggrieved, it knows its remedy.