Sanford v. Hampton Resources, Inc.

Plaintiffs appealed a general judgment for Defendants in their claims for negligence, breach of contract, intentional interference of economic relations (IIER), and Oregon’s Employer Liability Law (ELL)(ORS. 654.305-336). Plaintiffs appealed with three (3) assignments of error: (1)(2) the trial court’s erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant on the IIER claim and ELL claim and (3) the trial court's denial of Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint for the third time. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued, as to the IIER claim, that not only was there sufficient evidence to support a finding that Defendant communicated to Risseeuw (the contractor that hired Plaintiffs) and other contractors to not hire Plaintiffs, if they wanted Defendant’s business, but that, additionally, Plaintiffs assert Defendant is a powerful logging company who has significant influence in the logging industry and that Defendants themselves admit it would be improper to have influence over whom to hire. As to the ELL claim, Plaintiffs asserted Defendant should be liable under ELL as an indirect employer because Defendants controlled the bridge from which Plaintiffs fell. In response, Defendants argued that there was only evidence that contractor Risseeuw directed Plaintiffs to cross the bridge. Additionally, Defendants argued that the case had been pending for five years, and new claims would require new discovery. “To succeed on an IIER claim . . . [there must be] (1) the existence of a professional or business relationship (which could include, e.g. a contract or a prospective economic advantage), (2) intentional interference with that relationship, (3) by a third party, (4) accomplished through an improper means or for an improper purpose, (5) a causal effect between the interference and damage to the economic relationship, and (6) damages.” McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or 532, 535, 901 P2d 841 (1995). When reviewing the evidence on summary judgment, the Court found (1) there was insufficient evidence to support an IIER claim. Additionally, the Court found there was no evidence that Defendant had the right to control the risk-producing activity of driving heavy machinery across the logging site. Finally, the Court agreed that amending the complaint once more would have "substantially altered the case" and would have reopened the discovery process. 

Affirmed.