An employer has a legitimate interest in limiting not only a former employee's ability to take advantage of personal relationships the employee has developed while representing the employer to the employer's established client, but also in preventing a former employee from using his former employer's customer lists or contacts to solicit new customers. #Uz engineered products inc trial
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADOPTING APPELLEE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND APPELLEE'S PROPOSED JUDGMENT ENTRY MOREOVER, THE TRIAL COURT'S LIMITED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SIMPLY DO NOT SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. THE JURY'S DAMAGE AWARD AGAINST APPELLANT KIMBALL-MIDWEST WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT TRIAL, AND THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON THE AVAILABILITY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO THE JURY CERTAIN OF THE APPELLANTS' PROPOSED INTERROGATORIES. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANTS' RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL BY DECLARING THAT UZ'S NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS WITH MOORE, McLANE AND GRADY WERE REASONABLE AND ENFORCEABLE "AS A MATTER OF LAW."
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT WHERE APPELLEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT ITS NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT WAS REASONABLE AND ENFORCEABLE.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO APPELLANTS' PREJUDICE BY ALLOWING APPELLEE TO COMMENT UPON BEFORE THE JURY, AND INTRODUCE INTO EVIDENCE, IRRELEVANT AND IMPROPER EXHIBITS AND TESTIMONY INCLUDING EVIDENCE OF KIMBALL-MIDWEST'S OWN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND OTHER LITIGATION AND SETTLEMENTS, AND THE COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANTS' MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL.
Defendant-appellant, Midwest Motor Supply Co., Inc., d/b/a Kimball-Midwest, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas awarding plaintiff-appellee, UZ Engineered Products Company, $69,837 in compensatory damages and $30,000 in punitive damages on plaintiff's claim that defendant tortiously interfered with the employment agreements of plaintiff's former employees. An expert may rely upon facts derived from the facts in evidence or from his own investigation. Eastgate Properties (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 65, 68 Brookeside, supra, at 158. A plaintiff may not merely assert that it would have made a particular amount of profits, but must prove lost profits with calculations based on facts. Lost profit damages are measured by the loss, including lost profits the plaintiff business sustained as a result of the tortious interference, not by its effect upon the defendant's business. Such damages include lost profits, reduced by the expenditures saved by not having to produce that profit, if both the existence of the loss and the dollar amount of the loss are proven to a reasonable certainty.
0 kommentar(er)
