 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
K & K Recycling11/14/2003
t attraction because the dredge cannot be operated without those parts. K&K;s claim fails, however, because the record contains no evidence of an existing prospective business opportunity with tourists. Karl testified that K&K;had not made any commitments to third parties to have the dredge operate as a tourist attraction. There is also no evidence that AGC or Seuffert knew of any such commitment and intended to interfere with it. The court therefore did not err in granting summary judgment to AGC and Seuffert on this claim.
3. Conversion, Trespass, and Wrongful Withholding
"The tort of conversion is `an intentional exercise of dominion and control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.' " To establish a conversion claim, a plaintiff must prove that it had a possessory interest in the property, that the defendants intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's possession, and that the defendants' acts were the legal cause of the plaintiff's loss of property. Trespass to chattels is essentially conversion but to a lesser degree.
K&K;s allegations are basically that Seuffert and AGC obstructed K&K;s removal of the dredge and that Seuffert refused to turn over all of the dredge equipment and facilities. These claims concern contractual breaches and disputes and thus "sound in contract, rather than tort." We have held that " romises set forth in a contract must be enforced by an action on that contract." If K&K;s claims could stand, then any contract case involving the transfer of goods or realty would also contain a trespass, conversion, or wrongful withholding claim. But every contract breach cannot be turned into a tort. Furthermore, the consequential damages that would flow from K&K;s tort claims and from K&K;s contract claims significantly overlap. We therefore affirm the court's grant of summary judgment to AGC and Seuffert on these tort claims.
4. Punitive Damages
Because the gravamen of K&K;s allegations is in contract, and because none of K&K;s tort claims can stand, the superior court did not err in dismissing K&K;s punitive damages claim.
D. The Superior Court Did Not Err in Giving Its Jury Instructions
K&K;argues that jury instruction Nos. 34, 35, and 36 are erroneous. Instruction No. 34 deals with methods of calculating damages. Instruction No. 35 concerns K&K;s duty to mitigate damages. Instruction No. 36 addresses speculative damages. We review jury instructions de novo and will only consider them grounds for reversal if they were objected to and caused prejudice. If not objected to, we will review jury instructions "only for plain error - that is, for obvious error creating a high likelihood of injustice." "As long as the jury is properly instructed on the law, . . . the trial court has broad discretion to determine whether to give instructions specially tailored to the case at hand."
K&K;claims that it did not use the total cost method to calculate damages and that Instruction No. 34 is thus an incorrect statement of the law under this case, misled the jury, and prejudiced K&K; Prior to the drafting of this instruction, K&K;argued to the superior court that it did not believe that the total cost method of calculating damages was involved in this case but indicated that the court might have to give an instruction including both actual and total cost instructions, which is what the court did. After it was drafted, the only discussions on the instruction were as follows:
THE COURT: e've t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|