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

We conclude that even when construing the evidence in the light most favorable to
Wolfe Electric, as we must, there is insufficient evidence to support the giving of the part
of the instructions requesting damages for loss of opportunity for sales. In short, there is no
reasonable evidentiary basis for computation which will enable the jury to arrive at an
approximate estimate of damages. See Puckett, 290 Kan. 406, Syl. 3; Wolfenbarger, 236
Kan. at 188.
As a result, the court erred in giving these parts of Instructions 5 and 8 to the jury.
As mentioned, the court also erred in giving that part of Instruction 13 which informed the
jury it could award damages for Global's tortious interference with Duckworth's contract if
Global breached that contract. In short, of the jury instructions defining the four legal
theories for defendants' liability, only the instruction concerning Duckworth's breach of
fiduciary duty was without error.
We now turn to the question of whether these multiple jury instruction errors require
reversal. As our standard, we have held that instructions will be approved on appeal if they
are substantially correct and the jury could not reasonably be misled by them. In re Care &
Treatment of Foster, 280 Kan. 845, 864, 127 P.3d 277 (2006).
Our harmlessness analysis is complicated by several factors. They include: (1) five
total causes of action, with three against Duckworth and two against Global; (2) although
later modified by the trial court, identical jury damage awards of $275,000 against
Duckworth for his breach of contract and his breach of fiduciary duty, including damages
of $50,000 for lost profits and $50,000 for loss of trade secrets and confidential
information, and (unsupported) damages of $125,000 for lost opportunity for sales and
(unsupported) damages of $50,000 for loss of good will; (3) for all but one of the categories
of jury damage awards against Duckworth (for his breach of contract and breach of
29