Downing v. Burns
348 S.W.3d 415
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Downing copied four pages from the real-estate office policy manual before resigning.
- Burnses threatened to sue anyone who employed Downing if she did not return the material.
- Downing subsequently worked for Keller Williams entities Fuentes and Dalvandi; she was terminated by Fuentes and Dalvandi after Burnses' threats spread in the industry.
- Downing sued for defamation and tortious interference; Burns counterclaimed for theft of trade secrets; the jury found for Downing on all three claims, but the trial court entered judgment only on tortious interference and theft claims.
- The trial court denied partial relief on the defamation damages and later granted JNOV to the Burnses on that claim; damages were found for tortious interference but later deemed excessive.
- The court of appeals reversed, concluding theft of trade secrets was not conclusively proven, defamation damages could be supported, but tortious-interference damages could not be supported in full; case remanded for a new trial on the tortious-interference claim and related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theft of trade secrets conclusive proof? | Downing argues theft was not conclusively proven. | Burnses contend they proved theft as a matter of law. | No; theft not conclusively proven; remand not warranted on that claim. |
| Defamation damages sufficiency under the given charge? | Downing asserts sufficient damages under defamation findings. | Burnses contend damages were not proven under the defamation damages question. | Defamation damages under the given per-quod charge are legally insubstantial; JNOV proper on defamation damages per the record. |
| Whether tortious-interference evidence supports liability and damages? | Downing argues liability and damages were supported by evidence of interference. | Burnses claim liability/damages are unsupported or improperly calculated. | Liability supported, but damages exceed proven economic loss; remand for recalibration. |
| Scope of remand and separability of claims? | Downing seeks remand with potential severance to address damages separately. | Remand should separate if separable without unfairness. | Claims not separable without unfairness; reverse and remand all claims for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency and defeating jury verdicts)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (burden of proof on challenging verdicts; conclusive opposites)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Hines, 252 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. App.—Hous. [14th Dist.] 2008) (defamation per se vs per quod distinctions and damages framework)
- Rocor Int'l, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 77 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. 2002) (defamation damages review standard applying more than scintilla of evidence)
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (elements of tortious interference with existing contract)
- Hines v. Garrett, 252 S.W.3d 496 (Tex. App.—Hous. [14th Dist.] 2008) (defamation per se damage presumptions and related analysis)