*1 No. 5602. In Bank. Nov. [Sac. 1943.] JOAQUIN al., Respondents, EMDE GEORGE W. et SAN (an LABOR CENTRAL Unincor- COUNTY COUNCIL Association) porated al., Appellants. et *2 Galliano, James F. Clarence E. Todd Henry C. Todd for Appellants. Tobriner
Mathew 0. as Amicus on Appel- Curiae Behalf of lants. Clark, Bartley' C. Clark, Crum Webster Y. Rogers & n ' Respondents.
R. Heeht for J. During a George dispute between EDMONDS, labor J. busi Marshall, Lois owners W. Emde and E. Labor No. the Stockton ness, Teamsters’ Local stating that, of a viola because Journal union, employ the teamsters’ tion of their contract with list. Don’t Patronize” placed upon “We had been ers officers, against organizations and their whom Certain labor awarded, damages assert punitive compensatory and article. nothing publication do judgment, they and grounds As for reversal of the additional liable, also found newspaper, who were the owners of defenses, questions privilege as rely truth and and effect the announcement scope decision concern upon. sued complained
(cid:127)At time of the action, respondents’ of this stated commencement co-partners, carrying complaint, Marshall were Emde and Farms. Happyholme the name of business under *3 Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stable- International Brotherhood of America, voluntary unincorporated Helpers men with American association, a labor union affiliated a vol- Teamsters’ Local also Federation of Labor. No. association, char- untary unincorporated a labor union organization. Joaquin San by the international tered unincorpo- voluntary County Central Labor Council was consisting of local and labor unions rated association trade Labor, including Federation of with the American affiliated No. was maintained to influence Teamsters’ Local organized public opinion in favor of labor. secretary-treasurer union. of the local C. C. Allen was organizer Conboy, as international of the brother- William J. charge sole and exclusive and control of all hood was Joseph of the local. Bredsteen and the affairs and activities Tosh, doing firm of Bred- R. business under name W. publishers of the Stockton Labor Jour- Tosh, steen and nal, weekly newspaper, devoted to the interests which was organ labor, duly of the organized authorized pronouncements its and com- publishing labor council public and all union mem- municating its activities to the County. sympathizers Joaquin San bers and According complaint, organizations to the these labor “printed published in individuals said Stockton Labor reading Journal” an article as follows: “Happyholme Dairy With Violates Contract
Teamsters by Urged not to Patronize Local “Unionists Council Pail to Negotiations “Action After Months’ Comes Three Bring Operators. from Peaceful Settlement agreement signed “Because its Team- violated with 439, hiring sters Local non-union initiated a drivers and policy, Happyholme Dairy, destructive labor located serving the Sacramento Road at Lodi and the entire Stock- area, ton list placed on the official ‘We Don’t Patronize’ Monday Joaquin County the San Labor Central Council night.
“All organized urged friends patronize labor are not to dairy. All op- this other milk are distributors Stockton erating union-basis, dealing on a so there is no excuse for with a non-union firm.
“According Union, Happy- to officials of the Teamsters working agreement holme had been under an with the organization July however, several months. On while force, management contract was still in openly vio- lated its word hiring wagon non-union milk drivers.
“In addition, drivers were made furnish their own ve- put hicles and were straight plan. on a This commission wiped move wage guarantees out the minimum established agreement in the Union, although the status employes unchanged. remained wage gains destruction of mínimums made is a threat organized throughout labor the district.
“A peaceful difficulty sought settlement of has been *4 three months Union, dairy the Teamsters but managers have refused to per- make concessions. Their sistent refusal to work mutually satisfactory arrange- out a ment has forced the Union and Central Labor to Council deny the dairy the patronage organized labor.
“In Stockton, Happyholme Dairy operates out Inn, Bobb North El eating place. Dorado, a non-union getting Ilappy-
“All friends of labor now milk from the dairy urged patronage to their holme are take elsewhere immediately help thus maintain and union-established and ’’ wage working union-protected scales and conditions. continues,
By article, complaint appellants this agreement respondents that the had violated their with meant failing keep promise their employ the local union. to specified by only contract, members of it at the scale perform legal were dishonest had failed to their and obligations. dairy non- operating The owners of the are business, organized labor, union opposed and are whereas persons conducting all similar other businesses are conform- ing agreement. appellants meant, union also says to the persistently complaint, that Emde and Marshall had re- any mutually satisfactory arrangement to work out fused local, wage protect with the and order to union scales and working Stockton, necessary conditions in it was for all mem- sympathizers patronage their bers unions and withdraw respondents. from the defamatory article was false par- and each of these
ticulars, complaint charges, printed pub- and was and appellants, maliciously wickedly lished knowledge falsity part them, full its on each design injure with the intent and the owners of the occupation destroy Categori- their their and to business. cal denials of truth of each statement the article follow. damage
Concerning suffered, claimed to have been placed $25,000, value of the at and it is asserted profit, very business, that the in fact the existence of the directly good depends upon purchasers will of of milk products Joaquin county. By milk San reason of the publication, certain patronize named customers ceased to dairy, $1,900, computed basis; a loss of at on annual persons respondents number of unknown to the who had formerly purchasers Happyholme products been withdrew patronage, occasioning $1,348 their a further loss of $3,613 damage basis. Further in an annual amount of same charged because three wholesale customers discontinued gen- respondents business relations. The valued the asserted $25,000 eral injury reputation business and $10,000 exemplary damages additional as demanded because *5 of part appellants, on the and each express of the malice of them. joined in unions, Conboy and an answer which Allen
The concerning allegations general and existence admitted purposes organizations. pleading of the labor The also con- Conboy Allen performed and held the officesand ceded specified by complaint. respon- the duties But all although charges other were it was dents’ denied stated pleaded the complaint'“appeared pub- the article or was printed in the Labor lished or Stockton Journal.” “individually Joseph Bredsteen, co-partner and as of the Tosh,” firm Bredsteen & for part the reason of lack of belief, allegations information or denied all complaint except relating ownership those of the Stockton publication By Labor Journal but admitted of the article. answer, pleaded amendment of his special Bredsteen de- the truth fenses words claimed to defamatory publication privileged that their constituted communication, malice, without of organized members one purposes. labor also in its Furthermore, interested says answer, Bredsteen such stood relation to mem- organized bers of labor as to ground furnish reasonable supposing that motive for the communication was all innocent. Another pleaded times defense he is that made the request organized communication at the labor in San Joa- quin county, persons who were the interested in it. an- swer also that the complained asserts item of was malice. without organizations
The labor and their officers, by stipulation, filed amended answer pleading also truth and privilege as. that, alleged Further, prior defenses. to the publication, respondents Local No. 439 parties signatory to bargaining agreement collective concerning milk wagon drivers, provided employee that no required should be permitted make written or verbal contract con- respondents flict with it. The milk routes, three agreement made an with some of their whereby each purchased dairy’s of them one trucks and distributed milk on a commission basis.
Upon the issues framed pleadings, jury these returned awarding verdict Emde Marshall compensatory dam- ages $15,000 $5,500 punitive against damages charged with responsibility individuals
unions and the motion for a new of the article. On trial publication $7,000. compensatory damages was reduced amount judgment or- were taken from the and the Separate appeals judgment notwithstanding denying motions for ver- ders dict. officers none of them unions and their contend that said be libelous.
procured the article *6 that the article was not libelous appellants All the insist of true, publication was per by innuendo; or that se or privileged, express pleaded no malice was either and damages, they argue that there is proved. of On issues damage by respondents as the any no of suffered proof awarding any puni- publication, nor basis of the result damages against all of them. tive by plea privilege that of respondents assert procuring publi- their officers organizations and admit labor shows, upon. article sued And evidence cation of the to engaged in a unions were combination say, that the they brought pub- Conboy and about the them, and Allen injure They in of that purpose. furtherance the article lication of glso responsible for the appellants are that all insist though per se, even false libelous publication, which was and alle- dispute. of And the in the course a labor made it was part each complaint charging malice on the of gations of evidence, by the which de- supported is appellants qualified privilege justifies the award a defense of feats damages. punitive originated when the controversy parties between distributing milk to its cus- changed method of concerning the facts. dispute essential no tomers. There is and three respondents November, appears It at Stockton engaged same business employers other Brotherhood agreement with the International signed an wages working covering conditions union the local one-year for a agreement, which was By employees. this $1,60 addi- month with paid per to period, be concerning requirements for overtime tional amounts made, for uniforms payment should when deliveries hours agreement A provision working conditions. and other to make permitted or required shall be employee was: “No this will conflict verbal contract or written agreement.” their May, 1938, distributing Emde and Marshall were Through manager pro-
product on three routes. the drivers of these routes take them over and posed operate “independent thereafter contractors.” Two drivers, the three all of whom were of Local then members 439, agreed so; preferred do the third man to continue existing. By June, under the conditions then the middle of details, agreement It except minor worked out. form, 30th, same stated letters of the dated June ad- Savings Bank, signed dressed the Stockton and Loan by accept each of the two union drivers who decided to arrangement. By letter, applied his each of them the new promissory guaranteed for a loan to he evidenced note dairy. Happyholme According letter, appli- money cant was to use the himby purchase borrowed “the presently using milk truck which he employee as an Happyholme delivering Farms its milk to its customers territory working” route which he and also “the total accounts receivable due from its customers” served in that area.
During negotiations concerning contracts, the proposed officers the local union had heard contemplated transactions and liked part July 1st, by Prior them. *7 telephone, both Allen Conboy and had discussed the matter dairy’s manager, with the and each them of had endeavored to dissuade the undertaking two drivers from the ar- new rangement. Shortly July 1st, after the union took these drivers’ union cards By July from them. one 20th men applied who had to the bank for a loan to finance the distribution give contract decided he up would the route he operating. was According to testimony, his this was due by made to threats the union officials to him. One of the ranch employed hands by dairy route, asked this July and on 23d he and the former union driver went bank signed and each a promissory note, a conditional sale purchase contract for the of a truck by then owned dairy, distribution contract. The man who to distribute the Happyholme products on the third route ill at time, but later signed he a note in and contracts the same form those as executed the other two. of Each the three men was licensed by Department the California Agriculture as an independent milk distributor.
154 proce- dispute according to the attempt settle the contract, the matter sub- specified by the union
dure having from each representatives committee three mitted to a August question 23d and at issue was met on side. It operators Happyholme routes present stated as: “Are employer represen- Happyholme?” three employees represent- negative persons and the voted tatives three September affirmative. 26th ing the union On placed Labor on the unfair list Council Central days offending was,published. four later Although publicizing of the facts of a labor dis liberty of free pute peaceful in a manner is within the dis guaranteed by the Amendment to the cussion Fourteenth controversy Constitution, party to the has United States privilege such as to avoid to discuss matters so absolute injury to another caused a mali responsibility civil false made the course of differences cious and statement America, 21 (See between them. Washer v. Bank Cal.2d Because, however, peace 822, 832, 297].) 833 [136 is public contention a matter of vital ful settlement of labor concern, parties controversy must be accorded to such involved, right upon fair the facts make comment privi true or long is least so criticism based (See leged Publishing Snively statement fact. v. Record 1]; Rest., Torts, ; sec. 606 33 Co., Cal. 565 P. Am.Jur., Slander, 161, p. 155; Libel sec. for a discussion right public the conflict discussion as whether opinion, or whether it addition ex limited to comment an honest to false assertions fact made with belief tends 839, [1941], 840; truth, 94, pp. see Prosser on Torts see. 521, Am.Jur., Libel 520, 522; note, So.Cal.L.Rev. Slander, p. 156.) greater protection is 162, sec. Even ac statement, manner corded who makes a in a reasonable one having proper purpose, persons for a a common in subject communication, terest with him in matter of the reasonably of a kind calculated to when the Code, 3; Rest., protect (Civ. or further it. sec. subd. 837; Torts, sec Torts, 596; p. sec. also Prosser sec. 595.) 3 Rest., Torts, privilege For conditional secs. this *8 fact, although extends false statements occasion lost, may privilege protection be abused grounds publisher’s lack or of reasonable for be belief,
155 lief, defamatory matter, by pub excessive the truth lication, defamatory for an matter im group proper goes beyond or if defamation purpose, interest. gener peaceful of both the public inducement
ally particular boycott of union an em members ployer party controversy, who is a form of labor pressure organizations may properly economic which labor employ pursuit (C. of a lawful end. Smith Met. Market S. Lyons, 414]; C 16 P.2d 389, McKay o. v. Cal.2d 395 [106 v. 1067, 326, Retail S. Union 16 327 311, Auto L. No. Cal.2d 373].) may And it par be denied [106 controversy ticular between and the union present action, involving as it of or does the dissatisfaction ganized system distributing labor with products milk wages hours, compen minimum avoids workmen’s security benefits, legitimate sation and social matter ais dispute. (Bakery labor Wohl, & P. Local v. 315 U.S. Drivers Wagon 86 816, 1178]; S.Ct. Milk Drivers’ L.Ed. [62 Valley Products, Union Lake Farm U.S. S.Ct. v. [61 63].) directly Therefore, union, L.Ed. and those cause, interested and connected the labor right urge of or course, the members public and, of ganized labor, buying dairy’s products refrain from system unless the of distribution which abandoned the it had undertaken and union in accordance rehired existing contract, terms of the not the with the whether or employer-employee relation existed mem then between the bers dairy. of the union (American and the Federation of Labor Swing, 312 855]; v. U.S. S.Ct. 85 L.Ed. C. S. Smith Lyons, 401; Met. Market v. supra, p. McKay Co. at Retail v. S. 327.) Auto. L. Union No. supra, pp. 326, course, Of result of application the lawful of economic resisting pressure, employer may definitely suffer ascertain damage able may recognized for which obtain legally he compensation from inflicting (C. those it. S. Smith Met. Market Lyons, supra, 398, 399.) Co. at pp. light
In factors, these determining difficulties in when privilege the conditional capital express and labor to their views on labor controversies has been abused and in segregating compensable damage items from non- compensable readily are apparent. And since disputes, such realistically considered, normally involve considerable dif- *9 opinion,
ferences of vehement adherence to one side or other, necessarily the broad of discussion without area civil damages responsibility indispensable concomitant of controversy. the
Summarizing underlying the uncontradicted facts the present suit, appears the basis the publication which is union, dairy, notwithstanding its that the contract with the change operation negotiated method of decided to its employ with union drivers then in its to milk the distribute upon on to the same the same routes a different customers plan, buy basis. Under the new the drivers were to from the dairy being the servicing the trucks then used which were although existing routes, dairy agreed repurchase the them agreement. pur- upon termination of the The drivers were to dairy pub- milk for deliveries from chase the their the the prices posted Director of lished retail and wholesale the with discounts, although they given less Agriculture, specified undisposed prod- right the to return receive credit for long ucts so the returns did not exceed a “reasonable” as agreement dairy concluded, amount. the the Whenever from agreed buy but collectable accounts the uncollected the “distributor” from prohibited the drivers. The contracts names, disclosing any ad- selling, transferring or one the route, dresses, requirements of on his or the customers handling competing products his route from on the agreed to Furthermore, each driver return to other area. dairy possession his all books and customers’ lists route engaging dairy and to refrain from in the distribution of either soliciting patronage or in the therefor products agree- in the route the or another’s behalf covered his own years following the termination ment for two period only required to arrangement. use The drivers also were the dairy and to in their business telephone number of dairy’s headquarters through the telephone calls handle all had Inn. “distributors” men As route at the Bobb delivery regulated hours' wage, minimum nor were existing con- then they were under the plan under new tract with the union. dairy, working al- union Of the three ar- dairy-proposed agreed accept though two at first dairy’s contract signed rangement, only one of them his Because of its in accordance terms. milk distributed plan, new objections to the union’s to accede to the failure lifted, union card was two this man’s and neither new During subsequent negotia- man. a union drivers was sought induce the dairy tions-in which union to aban- although considered, arrangement, don new settling difficulty, mini- as a inclusion of a means wage guarantee in drivers, mum its contracts with the finally reached, impasse decided not to do so. After this placed unfair Joaquin list San County Central Labor Council. against
Measuring these facts statement *10 them, largely interpretation of the is matter difference of opinion. newspaper in or The statements contained the fall generally fact, probative into statements of conclusions fact, example, per- and conclusions of law. For element interpretation sonal in is the that included statements the dairy placed on Don’t Patronize” the “We list of the Joaquin County San Central on specified Labor Council the date; dairy that the Teamsters’ and the Union for several working agreement months been under an which was still 1; July that, in July 1, force on since the were required to furnish their own vehicles. And are these facts undeniably true. involving Statements of fact opinion, an element of how-
ever, following: dairy July include the The on 1 hired non- drivers, wagon and, union milk the arrange- under new ment, put straight the drivers on a plan. commission but, The word “hired” event, opinion is to some extent an in justified regardless of whether the the drivers under arrangement employees new independent considered as or contractors. An equally permissible conclusion is that since arrangement at least man one route under the new had no July union card and since at time the some days article, before the servicing all three union, dairy’s dairy the routes were not members the the “hiring” wagon milk non-union words drivers. the And “straight plan” commission fi- inaptly do not describe the arrangement nancial whereby buy the drivers were the dairy products necessary specified their routes at retail price, wholesale designated less a discount. instituting this plan, article, continues the the mini- wage guarantees mum established the “wiped union were out,” although the status employees of the drivers as dairy unchanged. remained As there no minimum
wage guarantee arrangement, new the first clause under the The obviously not false. second clause in- of this sentence is question of opinion to a mixed the statement of volves Considering powers of the distribu- law the limited and fact. prepared by many qualifications the contracts tor and signed presents dairy, men who had them the status of the legal question (see Lbr. v. Industrial Acc. difficult Co. Pacific these Com., 892]). Cal.2d 410 Under circum- stances, maintaining that the union position employees independent contractors was drivers were an undis- of fair comment certainly within the area puted status factual basis. assertion unchanged” employees of “remained drivers as light preceding statements must be considered compensation and relating changes the manner of as to viewed, only reasonable So ownership of vehicles. same merely meant conclusion physical man- by men a similar being routes were serviced ner as under the union contract. Comment, peaceful “A settlement of the newspaper’s by the Team
difficulty sought been for three months has managers make have refused Union, sters but the truthfully facts stated any concessions,” reports the also differ permissible Unquestionably, within limits. at several objections to times, presented ent officers union’s joined They ap contracts. of the distribution use *11 pointment in con question of arbitrators to determine ‘ troversy. finally pay to the distribu dairy refused And one This at least month. tors” minimum amount each refused. concession considered and a destruc dairy The declaration had “initiated with the policy” connection tive labor should be read wage mínimums subsequent observation, “The destruction throughout gains by organized labor is threat made to designation “un to statement similar district.” Such a is Although some conflict exists organized fair labor.” Corp. Drivers, v. question (see Terminal Consolidated Tobacco Union, 645, 650; Axton-Fisher Co. etc., F.Supp. 33 269, Ky. Ann.Cas. Evening Co., 169 64 v. Post S.W. [183 preponderance far the 560, 667]), L.R.A. 1916E 1918C the rule the use of judicial supports decisions does labor controversies in connection with word “unfair” capacity, but integrity business impute of moral want 159 employer merely who réfuses is a characterization manner the union. conduct his desired business Council, (J. Building F. Parkinson Co. 154 Trades Cal. v. 580, 1027, 550]; 21 1165, 592 16 L.R.A.N.S. P. Ann.Cas. [98 Lyons, supra, p. 395; C. S. Smith Met. Market Co.v. Blossom Dairy Teamsters,- v. International Co. Brotherhood of 645, 650]; Thompson S.E.2d John W.Va.- R. Co. v. [23 Union, 410, 119, Delicatessen & C. W. Local 126 N.J.Eq. 123 ; 130, Sign A.2d Theater Co. v. Writers' Cinderella [8 133] 164, Union, F.Supp. 172; Local 6 Watters v. Retail Clerks’ 479, Union 120 424, 911, No. Ga. 427 S.E. 912]; Labor [47 Galliher, 364, 373, Review Pub. 153 Co. v. Ala. So. [45 188, 191, Campbell 674]; 15 Ann.Cas. v. Motion Picture Operators’ Union, 781, Mach. 151 Minn. N.W. [186 785, 27 ; A.L.R. Oper Motion Picture Mach. 631] Steffes Union, ators’ Teller, 136 Minn. N.W. 524]; [161 Disputes Labor Bargaining [1940], Collective sec. pp. 389-392; and Sullivan v. Theatres, Warner Bros. Cal. cf.
App.2d 660, 663 760, 762].) Upon analogy, the designation employer’s of an policy labor as a “destructive” merely one practice indicates that is a not meet does approval. language labor’s Such cannot be made the basis long of an action libel so occasioned, is inas present case, by the existence of a bona fide labor contro versy. And as the Supreme United States recog Court has nized application that the pressure by economic labor induce an employer to abandon “peddler” system is the pursuit legally justifiable (Bakery end & P. Drivers Wohl, Local v. supra; Wagon Milk Drivers’ Union v. Lake Valley Products, supra), Farm the inclusion statements newspaper urging all friends of labor dis continue their patronage help “and thus main tain union-protected wage union-established and scales and working conditions,” justified by the aim of the union to insure the of a wage maintenance minimum for the drivers delivering the dairy’s milk.
The only remaining subject challenge statement that the violated its contract Again, with the union. question legal of violation of conclusion, but, contract by innuendo, respondents pleaded have publica *12 tion charge convey intended to respondents were An innuendo, however, dishonest. cannot ascribe meaning to assertedly defamatory matter other or broader
160
than, to, naturally bear; it cannot add the words themselves (Bates published words. enlarge, change or the sense v. Campbell, 438, 442, 383]; 443 P.2d Chavez v. 213 Cal. [2 Co., 20, 666]; 25 P. Grand Times-Mirror 185 Cal. v. [195 122 Underwrit Dreyfus, 58, 389]; Cal. P. Jackson v. [54 62 591, 878]; 21 597 Pol Report, Cal.App.2d ers’ P.2d Inc., [69 81 Assn., Cal.App.2d 77, Mem. Park 15 lard v. Forest Lawn Cal.App. Taylor, ; Watson & 104 Vedovi v. P.2d 203] [59 Jennings, 623, 635 Cal.App. 47 80, 418]; Pyper 88 P. v. [285 Co., 28 Evening Herald Pub. .Cal. 565]; P. Pollock v. [191 Granges Crall, Cal.App. 27 App. 786, 30]; 788 Des v. P. [154 313, 777].) 315 P. [149 underlying asserted breach
Restating the facts employee that, despite the that no contract, appears it clause any written permitted or to make required “be agreement,” or that will conflict verbal contract sug respondents in effect the while union contract arrange gested the union enter into this new wage guar ment, no minimum under which there would be agreed to become orally the union drivers antee. Two of actually en of the two proposal, one parties to new union con dairy violated the extent the tered into it. To this rely not urging appellants did tract. And that the referred constituting of contract the violation such action as re action, trial to in article until after immaterial whether spondents ignore the rule that they time publisher were true at the believed his statements (3 Rest., Torts, made, long were true. so fact 33 Torts, 95, 854; Am. p. 582, g; sec. comment Prosser sec. 118.) p. Jur., Slander, Libel see. however, charge specific is the question, open
.More management force, still in that “while contract wagon driv by hiring non-union milk openly word violated its generally agreed necessary not ers.” It is allegedly accusation libelous the literal truth of prove substantially true imputation is every detail, long as the so “sting” (Hearne remark. justify “gist” so as to Los 150, 499]; v. DeYoung, 119 670 P. v. Cal. [52 Kurata 520]; 224, 227 Co., Cal.App.2d Angeles News Pub. [40 194, Examiner, Cal.App. Angeles v. Mortensen Los 957]; Stahl, 1, P. Cal.App. 927]; P. Skrocki [110 Torts, e; Torts, Prosser on sec. Rest., c! comment sec. action, 855, 856.) And,-in present it-may pp.
161 that, denied while a contract existed between the Teamsters’ dairy requiring and the that mem Union drivers should be 439, employers put into plan bers of Local effect a under men employment. which union continue their could Such interpretation may fairly “gist” be characterized as the or at charge, permissible least within the limitations of fair comment. charge if
But even
of violation of contract were
hiring
false insofar
referred to the
of non-union em
as
ployees,
newspaper
since the comment
in a
de
exclusively
organized labor,
voted
to the
its
interests of
(Civ.
47,
conditionally privileged.
Code,
sec.
3;
Publishing Co.,
subd. Bereman v. Power
The asserted the article in subsequent two journal issues of the labor consisted of more than nothing legitimate “follow-up” inform recipients stories to paper continuing developments controversy. in the Furthermore, one of specifically the two articles that states “dairy says good it has sold its faith,” routes thus giving employer’s dispute. version of the And testi- mony Conboy respondents’ told the manager business if plan the new not abandoned “You will never sell milk,” much going and that “We are to make them take back,” them only legitimate discloses an adherence to the purpose exercising power compulsion labor’s to induce the dairy to accede Nothing union’s demands. in the testimony indicates a want of belief part appellants one of the in the pub- contained in the statements ; contrary, lication reveals uniformly consistently good faith believed truth propriety position. If considered pub- the union licity to be unfair or misrepresentative, remedy its was charges by answer counter-publicity own, of its for the right speech just constitutional of free clearly right (National employers employees. Labor as of Relations Bd. Co., 889; Mfg. v. & Prince Labor Reed F.2d National . Co., 913-915, Relations Bd. Motor 114 F.2d Ford cert den., 1126].) 85 L.Ed. 312 U.S. S.Ct. judgment is reversed. J.,
Gibson, J., J., Traynor, Sehauer, J., C. con- Carter, curred.
CURTIS, jury, tried J. I dissent. This action was for both plaintiffs verdict was returned favor of the damages. appeal compensatory punitive is from *14 only, judgment, in rendered said ver modified amount questions supported by All in the substan dict. fact ease by of the of the tial are foreclosed reason verdict evidence jury. published it claimed article which was libelous or, might outgrowth said, was the culmi- properly dispute plaintiffs
nation of a various labor between dispute followed represented This groups by the defendants. by plaintiffs purported to sell certain transactions which the individuals, of whom had been in the to each of three one routes, employ a their milk plaintiffs as driver of one of in previously plaintiffs a been truck which had used city delivery claimed of milk in of Stockton. It was bona sale by defendants this transaction was not a fide that subterfuge whereby plain- trucks, was mere but as obligations employers, sought such tiffs certain evade they agreement pay wages minimum were under which unemployment drivers, compensation, their and workmen’s en- advantages employee is benefits and other to which an hand, the of this state. On the other titled under the law dispute the transactions were plaintiffs contended that vendees, the three individual bona fide sales of their trucks to trucks respective operation latter in their independent longer employees contractors. were their but sales or were actual Whether these transactions were jury, its verdict question for the the trucks was of fact finding that the transactions plaintiffs was a favor of purchasers and the were fide sales trucks bona routes operations delivering milk the three subsequent over plaintiffs. employees were not dispose plan plaintiffs proposed under which quan- wholesale thereof in by milk of the sale of their means owners, who milk resold the same retail to tities truck system,” “vendor consumers, has been referred to as the majority held, opinion, has as stated been application pressure of economic labor to abandon such end, citing system legally justifiable among of a pursuit Wagon Valley v. Lake Milk Union Farm other cases Drivers’ Inc., 311 85 L.Ed. Had Products U.S. S.Ct. 63]. charging that confined to statements been business, no plaintiffs adopted plan doing such truthfulness, to its and under contention could be made as mentioned, the decision last the defendants would Have been justified publishing embodying an article the facts controversy. reading But a that no men the article shows tion plan plaintiffs is made of this new under which the then doing business, positive but certain definite and state regarding plaintiffs ments were made now maliciously made, accordingly contend were false and libelous.
Among alleged appearing these libelous statements in said following may article the Happyholme be mentioned: 1. Dairy violates with teamsters. Because it had contracts 2. signed agreement violated its with Teamsters Local 439. 3. Hired non-union drivers. 4. Drivers were made furnish their own vehicles. 5. put straight Drivers were on a com- mission plan. 6. The status of the remained un- *15 changed. 7. management Dairy) The (Happyholme openly by violated hiring its word wagon milk non-union drivers. The given last statement will first be consideration. There can question be no that if this un- statement was false and privileged, libelous, it was by ingenious and not even the most reasoning may course of it appear be made to otherwise. In the attempt latest correctly this court to define libel by as defined 45 section Civil Code is stated that “ ‘Libel is a unprivileged writing false and publication by . . . exposes which any person hatred, ridicule, contempt, to or obloquy, or which avoided, causes him to be shunned or or tendency injure has occupation.’ (Civ. to him in his 45.) Code, sec. . . . These definitions have been held to include any language almost which, upon its face, has a natural tendency injure to person’s reputation, generally, either or respect (Bates to his occupation. Campbell, v. 213 Cal. 438, 441 383]; P.2d Stevens v. Snow, 58, 191 62 [2 Cal. [214 968]; P. Schomberg Walker, v. 132 Cal. 290]; P. [64 Tonini v. Cevasco,114 Cal. 103]); P. [46 words statutory meaning
clearly conveying one of cate within Bank America gories per (Washer se.” are actionable 297].) 822, 827 (1943), 21 Cal.2d [136 openly had charging plaintiffs vio- That the statement hiring wagon milk by their non-union drivers was lated word opinion. hy majority But practically conceded false is necessary the literal opinion prove “that is not holds detail, every so allegedly truth of an libelous accusation justify substantially as to long imputation as the true so “sting” ‘gist’ ‘sting’ or The in the of the remark.” they word. against plaintiffs was that violated their accusation The contract with the evidence shows that while under their drivers, plaintiffs sold all employ only local union union they had no persons third so that thereafter trucks to drivers, employ their busi- thereafter need of did not any drivers, plain- or non-union. Proof of ness either union they tiffs’ thereafter sale of their trucks any proof of truck drivers was not substantial need their word which was charge that had violated “sting” in the article. DeYoung, majority Hearne v. opinion cites the case of support P. of the statement Cal. 499]
just degree to show quoted proof required respecting the That case libelous was true. the article claimed just by is meant what furnishes a clear illustration “gist” “sting” in an claimed be libelous. terms article purported to be published what that ease the defendant plaintiff and his account between an divorce trial showed wife. The stated that the evidence by hurling upon his wife that defendant committed an assault libel action that appeared It at trial of the dishes her. in that plaintiff suit was not able to show that defendant her, hurling by dishes at upon committed an his wife assault action in the divorce prove but offered to that the evidence committed in said action did show that defendant hurling dishes. his other means than assault wife judgment appeal trial the offer and on court denied In so de- suit was reversed. plaintiff’s favor in libel 675) sting, hurt ciding (page “The court held: pub- charged in the fact that he plaintiff is found . . having his wife. . assaulted lication the evidence with *16 plaintiff charge is that the Substantially here stated, Testimony by hurling her. dishes at his wife assaulted wife, by use any his upon of kind divorce trial of an assault of the would part plaintiff, and violence force “sting,” before us prove charge.” In the case they in the fact that were plaintiffs, is found hurt to the violating word. with their charged in the article charge support of this prove Defendants unable to were drivers, that non-union but contend plaintiffs that had hired with they that while under contract prove plaintiffs, did only milk 439 to in their busi- Local No. hire union drivers had ness, parties their thereafter had sold trucks third trucks, not after said need to hire for their and did no “sting” non-union. driver, sales hire either union The word, charge plaintiffs libel was the that violated plaintiffs and proof plan into effect a under put longer they would need drivers cannot be said any proof charge, be substantial or of the so as to remove sting publication. from the The article therefore was false jury. by as found majority opinion false, publi- holds that even if conditionally
cation privileged, and was therefore libelous, there as was no evidence that by malice, actuated and therefore the record shows no evi- supports plaintiffs’ dence which ground. a verdict in favor on that opinion Said holds republication the asserted subsequent the article in two journal issues the labor nothing legitimate consisted of more than “follow up” stories to inform recipients paper of the continuing develop- controversy. ments No authorities are in support cited Presumably the above statement. none are to be found. question is not new this state. early case v. Elliott, Norris slander, Cal. a case for the court at page 74 held as follows: “Nor did the Court err in admitting proof that the slanderous words repeated were after action was commenced. This proof was offered and admitted only a proof as competent malice and was pur- pose. [Citing Again question this came before authorities.]” this court in the ease Vance, of Chamberlin v. Cal. also a case for page slander. On opinion it is stated: “The words testified to Abbott, the witness enlarge do not meaning complaint, the words of the if construed accordance with the averment above recited. The words testi- fied to the witness spoken were after the commencement of action, but as were substantially the same those quo on, they declared prove admissible to animo *17 166 alleged originally published. The words slander was import spoken before were of similar to those
spoken after brought. They may repeti be considered a this action question on the of malice. tion, so were admissible and [Cit ” Zanone, 93 of Harris v. Cal. ing In the case authorities.] slander, the law is stated 845], 59 an action for P. likewise [28 69) plaintiff this was at (page “Upon issue the follows: as any express malice liberty competent evidence of to introduce alleged original fully though in her com it had been as as defendant; of in the answer other plaint and denied competent import be of similar would utterances of words v. (Evening Journal Ass’n Mc- that purpose. evidence for 392; 430; Am.Rep. 43 Chamberlin v. Dermott, 44 N.J.L. Vance, 418; Ev., 2 84; 51 Greenl. sec. Townshend Cal. [75] ” Libel, 392.) on Slander sec. just of Hearne
A than cited is case later case those still already 150, 499], P. men- DeYoung, 119 Cal. 677 v. [52 alleged to have damages sued to recover tioned. Plaintiff claimed publication of a article reason been sustained admitted libelous. The trial court by plaintiff to have been alleged libelous publication of the a second evidence was contended the institution said action. It made after error, subsequent publication was this admission of that the 677) contrary, (page to the as follows: this court held but publications only are admis- “When consider that these we single proving actuating malice purpose for sible original is to see publication, in the difficult defendant why the commencement the action reasons substantial made publications there- to the admission should be bar jurisdictions, but, may the rule in other after; whatever adjudica- by the matter settled state deem the this we Elliott, supra, Cham- then cites Norris v. tions.” The court Zanone, supra, sup- Harris v. Vance, supra, berlin v. this is settled in of its the rule deemed port statement that state. Hearst, P. 143 was also to
Davis Cal. [116 530] approved in Scott v. Times-Mirror effect.' That case was same Co., fol- 1007], P. A.L.R. Cal. lowing language page admits of no uncer- 362 and which not tainty: logical import, and is “If the evidence has such received, for it must be it is incompetent, otherwise weight given to be such triers of the fact to determine the may tend to The fact that also establish evidence. libels, published publication other distinct either before constituting action, is to cause of he or after the one furnishing ground merely incidental and as regarded Nor is it material of the evidence. the exclusion against may party. shown to exist actions thus be other Hence, punitive damages sought are exemplary where (which in re- any libel evidence other an action civil logical tendency spect objectionable), having prove prompted by actual is mate- malice, rial, plain meaning competent, and relevant. This Hearst, supra, question Davis v. if there about subject prior state our law the to that there decision *18 provides It is none now. inconceivable that since the law recovery upon publications made actual malice the may by existence of very the fact not be established best evidence—namely, tending evidence of other libels to show a malicious and vindictive attitude of in- mind toward the jured party. recognize right To hold otherwise would to a be party deny to him opportunity defamed but a full to establish and enforce it.” present case were publications there both before
and after the action, of commencement this so above rule as to their prove admission applies. to malice evi This being dence question admissible the then malice became question jury. (Scott for the Co., supra; Times-Mirror McClurg, Clark v. 279, 282 Cal. 81 A.L.R. 908].) jury The verdict of the cannot any construed light other finding than a that the statement in published plaintiffs article that had violated their word was false and malicious. If malicious, false and it not privileged under subdivision Code, section 47 of the Civil any or under provision other section, of said or under this other law of finding state. being by This supported substantial evidence is binding therefore on this court. testimony Other in the supporting finding record jury published that the article was maliciously to relates by Conby statement made plaintiffs if the plan new abandoned “You will never sell much
’’ milk. In other words was a threat to ruin the business of plaintiffs, which represented evidence shows in- an vestment one over hundred dollars, thousand and which the plaintiffs large were supplying portion of the inhabi- city tants of the milk, Stockton with employing fresh employees number of in addition to the former drivers of spoken have been re- These could not their trucks. words toward the good or indifference any feeling will sponse one sentiment and that They clearly indicate but plaintiffs. against plaintiffs, feeling ill resentment of will and was a those willingness op- to vex and hurt who intention person uttering them. Their utterance posed wishes on the clearly part intent the latter. malicious indicated arising from or ill is a mind hatred “Malice in fact state of annoy willingness vex, injure another will, evidencing a 10.) (16 33, sec. person.” Cal.Jur. above, it is clear that the state-
From has said what been plaintiffs that the had violated published ment in the is therefore not neces- false malicious. It their word was go the other statements set out sary respecting into detail same of this which were of the previous part dissent just may discussed. While be that general character as that objectionable, they injurious therefore less they less were disregard with the same for truth- nevertheless uttered were willingness injure person fulness with the same penalty must against directed. same whom responsible publi- be visited those therefore the more for the serious imposed cation as is objectionable set forth in the matter and more article. majority opinion,
While conten- not discussed publishers other than the tion the defendants is made that, conceding regarding all that said the Labor Journal *19 published article, the is the libelous character of there printed published, either or that said defendants evidence publication. procured its in three this case shows that some months
The evidence declared, boycott these defendants work- before the was were plaintiffs together persuade in the to abandon ing order They doing meetings held several plan business. new They plain- present. had interviews which all were plain- employees, and new drivers tiffs and the latter’s failed, all their as a Finally after efforts tiffs’ trucks. defendants, these efforts of was result of combined boycott one was necessary declared found declare declaring boycott against plaintiffs. But would have slight plaintiffs’ the union business unless effect but vicinity of that fact. The were informed people labor through way people reach these effective most only It not Journal. official columns of the Labor Council, organ the Labor but was taken the union labor generally throughout city people nearby of Stockton and appeared published communities. article in the Labor immediately boycott Journal after the was declared. The only reasonable be drawn from inference this evidence published by They the article was these defendants. only persons its publication, interested its necessary boy- order to make effective the against cott which plaintiff. declared The ver- jury finding dict these defendants said in my fully opinion supported by If the evidence. findings finding body the fact supported by are infer- fairly ences may be evidence, drawn from the re- viewing court power findings. (Pa- is without to disturb such Com., Lumber Co. v. Ind. Acc. Cal.2d cific 892].) closing
In
it may be appropriate to call
attention
dissenting opinion
statement in the
by Chief Justice Stone
in which Justices Roberts and Frankfurter
concurred in
case of
States,
Schneiderman v. United
Shenk, J., concurred.
Respondents’ petition for a rehearing was denied November Shenk, 1943. J., Curtis, J., rehearing. voted for a