About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

63 B.U. L. Rev. 1101 (1983)
The Prima Facie Tort Doctrine: Acknowledging the Need for Judicial Scrutiny of Malice

handle is hein.journals/bulr63 and id is 1109 raw text is: NOTES THE PRIMA FACIE TORT DOCTRINE: ACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED FOR JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF MALICE The prima facie tort doctrine exists on the fringes of tort law as a theory that allows a plaintiff to recover for damage resulting from a defendant's intentional and malicious infliction of harm. Under this theory, a court's inquiry focuses on the defendant's motivations and intentions to determine whether liability should be imposed.' Courts have used this general doctrine to establish a separate cause of action, the prima facie tort.2 Alternatively, they have used the theory to justify imposing liability under other causes of action by expanding existing torts or by creating new ones.3 The courts' various approaches to treatment and application of the prima facie tort doctrine arise from different and often incompatible interpretations of the tort's purpose and required elements.4 The prima facie tort is generally defined as the infliction of intentional harm, resulting in damages, without excuse or justification, by an act or series of acts which would otherwise be lawful.' The specific applications of this definition vary greatly based on the manner in which courts interpret these elements. These divergencies in interpretation lead courts to apply the prima facie tort in inconsistent ways. The courts' confusion in interpretation has three focal points: defining otherwise lawful,'6 understanding the role I See infra notes 9-23 and accompanying text. 2 See infra notes 89-129 and accompanying text. 3 See infra notes 56-81 and accompanying text. I See infra notes 32-55 and accompanying text. 5 A.T.I., Inc. v. Ruder & Finn, Inc., 42 N.Y.2d 454, 458, 368 N.E.2d 1230, 1232, 398 N.Y.S.2d 864, 866 (1977). See, e.g., Bay City-Abrahams Bros. v. Estee Lauder, Inc., 375 F. Supp. 1206 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (suit against cosmetics manufacturer result- ing from its refusal to sell products to plaintiff for resale at retail price); Lincoln First Bank of Rochester v. Siegel, 60 A.D.2d 270, 400 N.Y.S.2d 627 (1977) (action to recover money owed on notes in which defendant filed counterclaim seeking dam- ages arising out of his false arrest and plaintiff's illegal attachment of state construc- tion contract held by defendant); Wegman v. Dairylea Co-op, 50 A.D.2d 108, 376 N.Y.S.2d 728 (action brought by former employee against former employer alleging, inter alia, commission of prima facie tort by defendant), appeal dismissed, 38 N.Y.2d 918, 346 N.E.2d 817, 382 N.Y.S.2d 979 (1975); Carnival Co. v. Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer, Inc., 23 A.D.2d 75, 258 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1965) (action by play producers granted right to produce play based on movie, with option to purchase movie rights). 6 See infra notes 48-55 and accompanying text for a discussion of the definition of the term otherwise lawful.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most