3.1 Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

[fn173] Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 710 P.2d 1025 (1985)

The ambiguity created by the early adoption of the standard of "wrongfulness without justification" was addressed by the Supreme Court in 1985 in Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 710 P.2d 1025 (1985). The Supreme Court abandoned wrongfulness of conduct as a standard of liability. Instead, the Court adopted the Restatement requirement that the defendants conduct be "improper as to motive or means." The significance of the Restatement standard is not so much in the terminology (improper versus wrongful) as it is in the classification of factors to be weighed in determining whether particular conduct is proper or improper. In reaching its decision, the Court in Wagenseller maneuvered through the difficulties inherent in the existing standard of liability to arrive at the new approach:

Three distinct formulations are apparent. The first is the requirement that the interferer act with "malice," in the sense of an intent to commit a wrongful act. [Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 129] at 983 n. 56. Under the second formulation, liability is imposed for any intentional and unjustified interference resulting in harm to the plaintiff. The burden of proving justification is placed on the...