14.2 Taser International, Inc. v. Ward (2010)

1. What are the facts of the case?

• Taser International makes stun guns and accessories
• Taser Inc. sold electronics including their Taser cam. Ward, an employee (who was not under an employment contract) tries to personally develop his own type of camera. After Ward resigns from Taser, he begins his own company that is later sued by Taser for breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty through competition.

2. What is the legal issue of the case?

(violation of the fiduciary duty of loyalty) Ward began the idea of his camera marketing while still an employee under taser, therefore trying to compete with the company.

3. How did the court decide on the issues?

originally in favor of Taser for Ward's apparent direct competition against the company, but the grant summary was later reversed and further proceedings were remanded.

4. What reasoning did the court use to substantiate their findings?

5. Do you agree or disagree with how the finding by the court in this matter? Please discuss why you decided as you did.