Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.13-15

As I have previously instructed you, the plaintiff(s) (has/have) alleged that the defendant(s)

intentionally <specify activity alleged>. I have also instructed you on what the plaintiff(s) must

prove in order to establish this alleged claim. If you find the plaintiff(s) (has/have) met the

burden to prove that this claim was committed, you may consider the plaintiff’s additional claim

that <specify defendants> conspired to commit it. You may not consider whether <specify

defendants> conspired to commit the underlying claim unless you first find that the plaintiff(s)

(has/have) met the burden to prove that the underlying claim was committed as the law does not

allow an independent claim of conspiracy.

To prove a conspiracy, the plaintiff(s) must prove:

1. a combination between two or more persons;

2. to do a criminal or unlawful act or a lawful act by criminal or unlawful means;

3. an act done by one or more of the conspirators pursuant to the scheme and in

furtherance of the object; and

4. which act or acts resulted in damage to the plaintiff.

The purpose of a civil conspiracy claim is to impose civil liability for damages on those who

agree to join in a tortfeasor’s conduct, and, thereby, become liable for the ensuing damages

simply by virtue of their agreement to engage in the wrongdoing. All conspirators need not

commit the tortious conduct. However, all conspirators are liable for the damages flowing from

the underlying tortious conduct to which the conspirator agrees.

The requisite agreement of conspirators may be inferred from proof of the separate acts of the

individuals accused as co-conspirators and from the circumstances surrounding the commission

of these acts. You can use circumstantial evidence, as I have previously defined it, to determine

if the defendants conspired together.

A co-conspirator is not liable for acts committed and harm done before joining the conspiracy.

Thus, if the tortious conduct had already been completed before the co-conspirator joined the

conspiracy, the co-conspirator has no liability for the damages that result from the wrongdoing.

It is the plaintiff’s burden to prove the conspiracy claim in this case and to show damages

resulting from the unlawful act. The plaintiff’s burden to prove a conspiracy remains the same

as the plaintiff’s burden to prove the underlying tort. As I have previously explained to you, the

plaintiff(s) (have/has) the burden to prove <specify tort> by clear, precise and unequivocal

evidence. It is also the plaintiff’s burden to prove the damages suffered as a result of the

unlawful act.

As I previously instructed, for any alleged civil conspiracy, the plaintiff(s) must prove a violation

of an intentional tort, in this case <specify tort>, and must also prove a conspiracy. If you find

that the plaintiff has failed to prove the underlying tort, or has failed to prove a conspiracy in

accordance with the instructions I have previously given you, then the plaintiff has failed to

prove its civil conspiracy claim, and you must enter a verdict for the defendant on the claim of

civil conspiracy. If you find that the plaintiff proved both the underlying tort and a conspiracy,

then you must find for the plaintiff on this claim.

[<Insert when appropriate:> It is possible for you to find that just two, but not all, of the

defendants engaged in a conspiracy. If you find that the plaintiff proved both the underlying tort

and a conspiracy between some, but not all, of the defendants, then you must enter a defendants’

verdict on this claim for the defendants not involved in the conspiracy.]