Kansas Supreme Court - 99536 – Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth

Like with the KUTSA instructional error previously discussed, another instruction,
Instruction 12, correctly sets forth the elements needed to prove liability of Global on the
claim of tortious interference. But, unlike the KUTSA instructional error—and like the
Duckworth contract instructional error discussed above—this elements instruction
contains no language ameliorating the effect of the error on the tortious interference claim
against Global.
Unlike the KUTSA and Duckworth contract instructional errors discussed above,
the first error in Instruction 3 regarding tortious interference was not repeated in the jury
verdict form. "Prospective" customers were deleted on the page captioned "Wolfe
Electric's claim against Global for Tortious Interference with existing contractual
relations."
"Do you find that Defendant Global Cooking Systems tortiously interfered with
the Employment Agreement between Plaintiff Wolfe Electric and Defendant Terry
Duckworth—
"1) By inducing and encouraging Defendant Terry Duckworth to breach his
Employment Agreement by soliciting or attempting to solicit conveyor pizza oven sales
from Plaintiff Wolfe Electric's former or current customers?" (Emphasis added.)
Nevertheless, inconsistency exists between Instruction 3 and the jury verdict form.
More important, like the KUTSA and Duckworth contract instructional errors, the other
error in Instruction 3—the wrongful inclusion of vendors and suppliers—is also repeated
on the jury verdict form. The jury is asked if it finds that Global tortiously interfered: "2)
By inducing and encouraging Defendant Duckworth to breach his Employment Agreement
by soliciting or attempting to solicit business from Plaintiff Wolfe Electric's vendors and
suppliers." (Emphasis added.) The jury answered this question "yes."
23