Thursday, April 5, 2007
Lowery, et ux. v. Smithsburg Emergency Medical Service, et al. (Ct. of Special Appeals)
Filed April 5, 2007--Opinion by Judge Arrie Davis.
This case involves allegations of defamation and intentional interference with economic relations claims. At the close of the Lowery's case, Smithsburg moved for judgment on all counts and the trial court granted the motion pursuant to Rule 2-519 on the defamation and intentional interference with economic relations claims. The Lowery's posit the following issues for review:
1) Did the trial court err in granting [Smithsburg's] Motion in Limine and precluding any testimony whatsoever pertaining to lost wages and benefits for supposed discovery violations?
2) Did the trial court apply the wrong standard of proof with regard to [Smithsburg's] motion for judgment pertaining to forfeiture of the conditional privilege afforded employers for statements made about a former employee's job performance?
3) Did the trial court err in finding there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the conditional privilege afforded statements made about an individual's employment had been forfeited in this case for the matter to be submitted to the jury?
4) Did the trial court err in finding that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Myerly acted intentionally and wilfully for Mr. Lowery's intentional interference with economic relations claim to be submitted to the jury?
This Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Washington County.
(synopsis to follow)
The full opinion is available in PDF.
This case involves allegations of defamation and intentional interference with economic relations claims. At the close of the Lowery's case, Smithsburg moved for judgment on all counts and the trial court granted the motion pursuant to Rule 2-519 on the defamation and intentional interference with economic relations claims. The Lowery's posit the following issues for review:
1) Did the trial court err in granting [Smithsburg's] Motion in Limine and precluding any testimony whatsoever pertaining to lost wages and benefits for supposed discovery violations?
2) Did the trial court apply the wrong standard of proof with regard to [Smithsburg's] motion for judgment pertaining to forfeiture of the conditional privilege afforded employers for statements made about a former employee's job performance?
3) Did the trial court err in finding there was not sufficient evidence to prove that the conditional privilege afforded statements made about an individual's employment had been forfeited in this case for the matter to be submitted to the jury?
4) Did the trial court err in finding that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Myerly acted intentionally and wilfully for Mr. Lowery's intentional interference with economic relations claim to be submitted to the jury?
This Court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Washington County.
(synopsis to follow)
The full opinion is available in PDF.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment