Fill and Sign the Jury Instruction 61 Raiding Key Employees Form

6.1 Tortious Interference With Business Relationship Raiding Key Employees In this case the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant committed acts constituting tortious or unlawful interference with the employment relationships existing between the Plaintiff and its key employees. In order to recover on this claim, the Plaintiff must prove each of the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence: First: That the Defendant enticed or induced Plaintiff’s employees to leave the Plaintiff's employ; Second: That the Defendant did so with the wrongful intent to injure or destroy the Plaintiff's business; and Third: That the Plaintiff suffered injury or damage in its business as a proximate result of the Defendant’s wrongful acts. [In the verdict form that I will explain in a moment, you will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning each of these factual issues.] In our free enterprise system, it is not unlawful or improper, standing alone, for someone to hire away someone else's employees so long as the person doing so wants to use the employees’ services in advancing that person's own business rather than with the intent of destroying the other employer's business. This is true regardless of how much the loss of the employees may inconvenience the former employer. The mere fact that someone's activity has injured another in business does not mean that the latter may recover because, in a free enterprise system, a businessperson has no legal complaint concerning a loss resulting from lawful competition, including competition for the services of skilled employees. If the means of competition are lawful, the advantage gained should remain where success has put it. The theory of the tort or wrong of interference is that the law draws a line between lawful competition and vindictive destruction of someone else’s business. So, a systematic effort to induce employees to leave their present employment and take work with another is unlawful when the purpose of such enticement is to cripple or destroy their employer rather than to obtain their skills and services in the legitimate furtherance of one's own business enterprise. [It also becomes unlawful when the inducement is made through the use of untruthful means, or for the purpose of having the employees commit wrongs, such as disclosing the former employer's trade secrets.] If you find that the Plaintiff has failed to prove its claim of tortuous interference as defined in these instructions, then, of course, your verdict will be for the Defendant. On the other hand, if you find for the Plaintiff on this claim, you will then consider the issue of the amount of pecuniary or monetary damages to be awarded. In that respect you should award the Plaintiff an amount of money shown by a preponderance of the evidence in the case to be fair and adequate compensation for such loss or damage, if any, as proximately resulted from the tortious interference. For damage to be the proximate result of such interference, it must be shown that, except for the tortious interference, such damage would not have occurred. In considering the issue of the Plaintiff's damages, you are instructed that you should assess the amount you find to be justified by a preponderance of the evidence as full, just and reasonable compensation for all of the Plaintiff's damages, no more and no less. Compensatory damages are not allowed as a punishment and must not be imposed or increased to penalize the Defendant. Also, compensatory damages must not be based on speculation or guesswork because it is only actual damages that are recoverable. You should consider the following elements of damage, to the extent you find them proved by a preponderance of the evidence, and no others: [State or enumerate the elements of recoverable damages] [You are instructed that any person who claims damages as a result of an alleged wrongful act on the part of another has a duty under the law to "mitigate" those damages - - that is, to take advantage of any reasonable opportunity that may have existed under the circumstances to reduce or minimize the loss or damage. So, if you should find from a preponderance of the evidence that the Plaintiff failed to seek out or take advantage of a business or employment opportunity that was reasonably available under all the circumstances shown by the evidence, then you should reduce the amount of the Plaintiff's damages by the amount that could have been reasonably realized if the Plaintiff had taken advantage of such opportunity.] [The Plaintiff also claims that the acts of the Defendant were done willfully, intentionally or with callous and reckless indifference to the Plaintiff's rights so as to entitle the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages. If you find for the Plaintiff, and if you further find that the Defendant did act with malice, willfulness or callous and reckless indifference to the rights of others, the law would allow you, in your discretion, to assess punitive damages against the Defendant as punishment and as a deterrent to others. If you find that punitive damages should be assessed against the Defendant, you may consider the financial resources of the Defendant in fixing the amount of such damages.] 6.1 Tortious Interference With Business Relationship Raiding Key Employees SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence: 1. That the Defendant enticed or induced Plaintiff’s employees to leave the Plaintiff’s employ? Answer Yes or No 2. That the Defendant did so with the wrongful intent to injure or destroy the Plaintiff’s business? Answer Yes or No 3. That the Plaintiff suffered injury or damage in its business as a proximate result of the Defendant’s wrongful acts? Answer Yes or No [Note: If you answered No to any of the preceding questions you need not answer any of the questions following or coming after the Question to which you gave No as the answer.] 4. That the Plaintiff should be awarded the following damages: [State or enumerate the elements of recoverable damages] SO SAY WE ALL. Foreperson DATED: