 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hayes v. Northern Hills General Hospital3/10/1999
jury. We have not previously addressed this element of the cause of action in detail. However, we find persuasive authority in other jurisdictions.
[ ] The case of Crinkley v. Dow Jones and Co., arose when Dow Jones published an article in the Wall Street Journal claiming Crinkley and another had made payments to foreign governments to win their business. 67 IllApp3d 869, 872, 385 NE2d 714, 716, 24 IllDec 573, 575 (IllAppCt 1978). Crinkley sued Dow Jones raising a number of counts. Id. One count was interference with prospective economic advantage. Id. at 873, 385 NE2d at 717, 24 IllDec at 576.
[ ] Dow Jones moved to dismiss the count alleging interference with prospective economic advantage because Crinkley had failed to allege the exact identities of the third parties with whom his economic expectations had been destroyed. Id. Crinkley's cause of action for interference with prospective economic advantage was dismissed. Id.
[ ] On appeal, the Illinois appellate court looked to the arguments the defendants had advanced to challenge the sufficiency of this count. Id. at 878, 385 NE2d at 720-21, 24 IllDec at 579-80. First, Dow Jones argued that Crinkley failed to allege an interference with a prospective business relation either with specific third parties or with an identifiable class of third persons. Id. The court of appeals disagreed with the Dow Jones' argument.
[ ] The court found no authority that set forth the requirement that a plaintiff who alleges this cause of action must further allege the identity of the third party or parties by name. Id. at 878-9, 385 NE2d at 720-21, 24 IllDec at 579-80. See Exciting World of Fashion, 16 IllApp3d at 713, 306 NE2d at 553; City of Rock Falls v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 300 NE2d 331, 333 (IllAppCt 1973). Further, the court also noted that in other cases involving this tort, the courts have not objected to the failure to name the prospective third parties. Crinkley, 67 IllApp3d at 878, 385 NE2d at 721, 24 IllDec at 580. See Colucci v. Chicago Crime Commission, 31 IllApp3d 802, 334 NE2d 461 (IllAppCt 1975). Moreover, the court noted that the term is "identifiable" rather than "identified" third parties, "which ... indicates that the third party's specific identity or name is to be revealed at a subsequent time, such as at trial." Crinkley, 67 IllApp3d at 879-80, 385 NW2d at 721, 24 IllDec at 580. (Emphasis added). See Willis v. Santa Ana Community Hosp. Ass'n, 376 P2d 568 (Cal 1962). (The California Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff to proceed with an action for interference with a doctor's relationship with his prospective patients, who were not named).
[ ] The trial court misinterpreted the term "identifiable" as found in Landstrom to mean there always must be a specific, named third party. In Landstrom, the plaintiff claimed the defendants interfered with her prospective economic advantage because she could not sell her stock. 1997 SD 25 at ยง 78, 561 NW2d at 17. However, Landstrom failed to show a valid business relationship or expectancy as she did not even try to sell her stock. Id. Landstrom even conceded that there was "no identifiable third party with whom to sell her stock." Id. (Emphasis added). In Landstrom we did not set the threshold for this tort at the level the trial court required of Hayes. The third party must only be "identifiable." Identifiable is defined in the sense that the third party is "subject to identification" or "capable of being identified." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1123 (1971).
[ ] Hayes' claim is in sharp contrast to Landstrom's as he actively attempted to maintain and expand his business in the Lead-Deadwood area. He alleged specific fac
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 South Dakota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|