Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. John Carlo Texas, Inc.
| Citation | 843 S.W.2d 470 |
| Decision Date | 09 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. D-1404,D-1404 |
| Parties | SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. JOHN CARLO TEXAS, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
The only issues we address in this case concern the trial court's charge to the jury on intentional interference with contract.
The City of Houston notified Southwestern Bell Telephone Company in January 1984 that it intended to widen Fountainview Drive between Westheimer and Highway 59. A City Ordinance provided:
The telephone company shall, upon the written request of the City, relocate its facilities situated within any street at no expense to the City where reasonable and necessary to accommodate street widening or improvement projects of the City.
Before contracting for the proposed work, the City inquired when Bell's facilities (consisting of aerial cables, poles, and buried cables) could be moved to accommodate the project. Bell informed the City that it could relocate its facilities by the end of December. Several weeks later, on March 23, the City signed a contract with John Carlo Texas, Inc. for the street widening project. The contract required commencement of the project in April and completion within 210 working days. Bell relocated its aerial poles in phases, completing the work in April 1985. Carlo finished the project four months later. The City did not complain that Bell failed to comply with the Ordinance, and also did not assess contractual liquidated damages against Carlo for failing to complete the project on time. However, Carlo claims to have been damaged by Bell's failure to move its facilities in a timely manner. Carlo sued the City for breach of their contract and Bell for intentional interference with that contract.
The jury failed to find that the City breached its contract with John Carlo with respect to the relocation of Bell's facilities, and the trial court rendered judgment on the verdict in favor of the City. The jury did find, however, "that Bell knowingly and intentionally failed, without justification to timely relocate its facilities", and that this failure proximately caused Carlo $171,155.80 actual damages. The jury also assessed $500,000 punitive damages against Bell. The trial court rendered judgment for Carlo against Bell for the damages found by the jury. Carlo did not appeal the judgment in favor of the City. The court of appeals affirmed the award of actual damages but reversed the award of punitive damages. 813 S.W.2d 613. Bell and Carlo both appeal.
Interference with contract is tortious only if it is intentional. Victoria Bank & Trust Co. v. Brady, 811 S.W.2d 931, 939 (Tex.1991); Juliette Fowler Homes v. Welch Assoc., Inc., 793 S.W.2d 660, 664 (Tex.1990); Clements v. Withers, 437 S.W.2d 818, 822 (Tex.1969); see RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS §§ 766-766C (1965). The jury in this case was not asked to find, and did not find, that Bell intentionally interfered with Carlo's contract with the City; it found only that Bell intentionally failed to timely relocate its facilities. The court of appeals concluded that it may have been clearer to inquire of the jury whether there was an intentional interference with contract, but that it was sufficient to ask whether there was an intentional failure to take action which Carlo claimed resulted in interference. 813 S.W.2d at 619. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Heritage Resources, Inc.
...either of the foregoing actions, involves the same type of proof and the question is one for the jury. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. John Carlo Texas, Inc., 843 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex.1992). In an action for slander of title, the party must allege and prove, inter alia, the utterings and publ......
-
Engenium Solutions, Inc. v. Symphonic Techs., Inc.
...result from it.'" Amigo Broad., LP v. Spanish Broad. Sys., Inc., 521 F.3d 472, 489 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. John Carlo Tex., Inc., 843 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. 1992)). "To show proximate cause, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant took an active part in persuading a p......
-
BHL Boresight, Inc. v. Geo-Steering Solutions, Inc.
...of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it." Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. John Carlo Texas, Inc., 843 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. 1992) (citations and internal citation marks omitted). Absent actual knowledge of the prospective contract or business r......
-
Domain Prot., LLC v. Sea Wasp, LLC
...are substantially certain to result from it.’ " Hansen , 525 S.W.3d at 690 (quoting Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. John Carlo Tex., Inc. , 843 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. 1992) ).426 F.Supp.3d 387 Here, Lisa Katz, on behalf of Domain Protection, "explained to Sea Wasp that [she] had pending contracts and c......
-
The Interference Torts
...to be of equal value to or greater than plaintiff’s contractual rights.”); Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. John Carlo Texas, Inc., 843 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. 1992) (Interference is “privileged where it results from the exercise of a party’s own rights or where the party possesses an equal or s......
-
Other workplace torts
...and willful act of interference; • Proximate cause; and • Actual damages or loss. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. John Carlo Tex., Inc., 843 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. 1992) (in order to state a cause of action for tortious interference, an act that interferes with an existing contract must be com......
-
Table of cases
...Civ. App.—San Antonio 1978), writ dism’d , 607 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1980), §29:4.D.2 Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. John Carlo Texas, Inc. , 843 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. 1992), §§30:5.B, 30:5.B.2 Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. NLRB , 667 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1982), §13:8.C.6 Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. W......
-
Table of cases
...Civ. App.—San Antonio 1978), writ dism’d , 607 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1980), §29:4.D.2 Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. John Carlo Texas, Inc. , 843 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. 1992), §§30:5.B, 30:5.B.2 Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. NLRB , 667 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1982), §13:8.C.6 Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. W......