Court Opinion

ID: 9628091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:07:14.254344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:44.688216
License: Public Domain

TONGUE, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion in this case. I disagree, however, with the new test as adopted by the majority for application in cases such as this and which requires that in order to recover for emotional distress or for harm to reputation in an action for interference with contractual relations “the claimed injury *721must be typical of the kind of contractual relationship involved in the case in order to come within the interests that the tort duty of non-interference is designed to protect * *
In my view, this test not only imposes a new requirement which must be satisfied in such cases, but is a test which is unworkable in practical application and is dependent upon the subjective judgment of the particular trial judge before whom the case is tried, subject to reversal in the event that the particular appellate judges before whom the case is heard on appeal may disagree with that subjective judgment. Moreover, it is a test which was not suggested by either party to this case, who have not had the opportunity to be heard upon its validity or invalidity.
I am of the opinion that instead of requiring for recovery of damages for emotional distress or harm to reputation in such a case that the claimed injury must be “typical of the kind of contractual relationship involved in the case,” as held by the majority, this court should adopt the rule as stated in 4 Restatement of Torts (2nd), § 774A(l)(c), as contended by the plaintiff in this case, to the effect that one who is liable to another for interference in a contract is liable for damages for emotional distress or actual harm to reputation “if they are reasonably to be expected to result from the interference.”
Under such a rule the “kind” of contract involved would be a factor, but only one factor, in considering the question whether emotional distress or actual harm to reputation is reasonably to be expected to result from the interference.