*1 diligence plained through no lack of part city. holding correct
The trial court was created no material fact was issue of guilty of held
since the could not be
negligence under circumstances. judgment below affirmed. COMPANY, PUBLISHING
FAIRBANKS Appellant, corporation, Alaska
v. FRANCISCO, Appellee.
Grant
No. 308.
Supreme Court of Alaska.
March *3 McNealy, Fairbanks, Robert Daniel J. J. Seattle,
Riviera, appellant. Wash., for Ingraham, ed to originally the council Parrish, Millard F. intended. A. Robert days About five appellee. after it had been written Fairbanks, possession the letter came into DIMOND NESBETT, J., and C. Before secretary of the Fairbanks Chamber of AREND, JJ. apparently Commerce who forwarded toit the City Council where was considered NESBETT, Chief Justice. or about March 1957. The letter com- aof libel suit appeal grows out This reads as follows: against appellee menced Grant “DOES FAIRBANKS A pub- HAVE CITY company which publishing appellant *4 MANAGER Fairbanks, OR A DICTATOR daily newspaper a lishes Daily Fairbanks as the Alaska known Following is by an Ad Paid the Fair- to have alleged The libel is News-Miner. banks Benefit Firemen’s Fund published in the in an item contained been your We Department, Fire as well as was re- 6,May 1957 which News-Miner being individuals wish the facts known the from a letter porting the contents you, to & Payer. Mrs. Tax Mr. Fire Chief newly appointed Fairbanks Since Matt City Slankard became of Fairbanks. City Manager Manager, every Department City in the by appellant are: raised questions The of Fairbanks been has in a constant item was fair news the whether (1) seige of Lately turmoil. Mr. Slank- privileged com- the abridgment of accurate ard been has concentrating on the Fire munication; suffi- there was (2) whether Department. years In all the justify to of actual malice cient evidence Chief job, Woodcox has been on the puni- question of jury the submitting to the he has never the seen Morale of the plaintiff (3) whether the damages; tive Department Nothing so he low. does testify con- permitted to should have Department does, or pleases Mr. (4) condition financial cerning his Slankard, constantly and he is be- permit- trial court should whether Department littling on TV and the trial to witnesses at plaintiff use ted praise. Radio. Never one word of pre-trial order. named in the who are our We blamed for equip- outdated com- which Francisco publication being repairs. ment in constant Take by published one of a series plained was subject Seagrave of the 1941 truck controversy reporting bitter News-Miner purchased that was Army, Department and Fire Fairbanks between which had into the fallen salt waters prior Manager commenced which City prior being Whittier to bought through continued 1957 and to March Fairbanks, City of Woodcox, Chief May in a to letter Mr. Slankard advised him alleged arti- libelous to view In order $5,000.00 repair it would cost to necessary review to perspective it is cle it, then, even would still be an reporting the contro- News-Miner’s old truck. Slankard listen, would not pub- beginning its the date versy from spent and went ahead and thousands of question. the article lication repairs, dollars and then publically stated he PERSONALLY the dissatisfaction of saw By March Depart- it was in excellent running Fire condi- of the Fairbanks members pump work, still won’t to be the tion. The what considered with ment City City again down, torn policies Manager Garage oppressive that, group, they money will cost additional tax as a caus- which great so become repair. work, pres- pump will never protest to be written for due a letter ed water, caused City to corrosion the salt the Fairbanks Council. entation pump parts. has eaten into the present- reason letter was not some For Department given This never tions. giving Instead of Mr. Slankard opinions as chance to voice our us a praise, repeat again, word of we equipment an efficient needed to run every takes opportunity to belittle us can department. We do we eyes, the best repeat before the Public’s and we equip- way again, have in what we with seige constant of turmoil is job. ment to do our tearing down every the Morale of De- partment City. our after Memo is sent Chief. Memo that, this, (Slank- without him Do Do Another item Nearly of interest. all ard) studying subject City Employees first buying own are their last all His homes, betterment of concerned. pouring City back into the Cof- are to that all the Firemen order was fers thousands of dollars. Most of HAS their uniforms at all times. wear them own their own automobiles. THE THAT HE FORGOTTEN What does Slankard contribute OUR UNI- NOT BUY DOES CITY out of his salary? immense He for us practical FORMS ? it be Would car, doesn’t even you, own a Mr. floors, up, clean- mopping be dressed & Payer Mrs. Tax paying for all *5 employee trucks, A is ing etc. new of this. a uniform after he has been given new We insist that investigation be months, job and that three is on the made, not Department to aid this Fund. paid from the Firemen’s Benefit Departments but all the other Rules issued some and has Slankard City Fairbanks, why and see these are Regulations and included in dictatorship should exist. cannot Politics that we discuss orders my Printed with full sanction and Does make Religion. sense? approval E. B. Woodcox Chief /s/ is our 24 hours at Fire Hall home The stretch, what about as Dept.” we talk Fairbanks Fire City business, the is not individuals our (Followed by signatures of 15 up Managers. drumming He now is members of the Fairbanks Fire De- making written idea of us all take partment, appellee including Fran- Department Every Fire else- tests. cisco.) except Fairbanks, has these tests where On March 20 the News-Miner carried by their The ones given to them Chief. page front headline which read “FIRE take, per- trying to make us is Slankard DEPT. BLASTS CITY MANAGER” fol- Service, there are tains to Civil lowed stating leaders “Council Turns certainly questions in the test that do Matter to Over Slankard After Hearing pertain our are not to area. We Letter” and “Firemen’s Letter Read at We have retirement Service. no Civil Council; Meeting of Members Decide that fight system. Our has had to for Chief City ‘Revolt’ Is Manager’s Problem”. given; every have raise we been we lengthy report In the followed, improvements to the hall to fight secure effect letter was described as a place in make it a more decent which to “mutiny” by the Depart- Fairbanks Fire fight even had to live. We secure ment which fizzled and died when council- up. paint clean it men refused to intervene and left settle- Matt Why act doesn’t Slankard like a ment of the up “revolt” to Slankard. Vari- Manager, instead of City dictating portions ous quoted letter along Department Heads? That isn’t with statements made various council oper- for. city A can Heads what City Manager. members efficientally much more with all the ate Department working Heads under On March in an editorial titled helpful sugges- conditions and CITY serene “NEWEST DISPUTE” the News- contro- be much better if we origin off could reviewed Miner keep ship municipal government our stated: three paragraph versy and keel, on an even and avoid storms intend to doesn’t “The News-Miner periodically wildly. rock it squabble, unfortunate into’ this ‘wade it, “As we see this trouble between the background give will but we city manager department readers. the fire of our dispute for the benefit has brewing long stake for a It all, taxpayers have a time. After appears steps controversy.” us that to end any city quite should have been taken some time carried a News-Miner March On ago; also, firing we feel that the MANAGER page “CITY front item titled four grounds men on the of ‘insubordi- FIRE- CHIEF, THREE DISMISSES exactly satisfactory way nation’ isn’t re- which followed item MEN”. news complaints to deal with of men who three ported that Fire Woodcox Chief proven good public to be servants'. Fairbanks veteran members other “Pinpointing dispute their blame in this Department been asked Fire difficult, is but we Matt Slank- cannot see how resignations by City Manager say- escape responsibilities as council can quoted its Manager ard. Yes, city inter- . manager best matter. ing it was “in the felt that operate hired to city government, of troubles ests of view council, but representa- their elected ask have arisen this week” to people, tives dis- has the overall re- article went resignations. The sponsibility city government fire- to see that possibility additional cuss the of two *6 properly. “in- conducted has their If being there men fired as a result of great a deal of dissatisfaction letter writing subordination” in one department city government, of the (cid:127)council. the council investigated should have carried On March 23 the News-Miner this matter. n an item on the “Fire controversy titled pleased “We are Chief, to that the Dismissal”. see coun- Men Tell About Their finally cil has to former decided look into picture Beneath the was a leader Maybe situation. it isn’t too late to three Chief Woodcox surrounded prevent an injustice, injustice is that ac- if an discharged firemen. In the article involved here. companied quotes from picture lengthy each of the the Chief including firemen hope “We gets council to the roots outlining personal views given of the matter. The four men who their each of firemen side the four as were discharged were veterans of fire controversy. department They service. have fam- ilies, and no doubt some of them were printed On March 26 the News-Miner to make planning a career of fire de- .an editorial “THE DISPUTE” titled CITY partment service. which read as follows: employees “We city owe it to all dispute “In the that has re- current it that serving see Fairbanks is city firing fire- sulted four occupation not a hazardous that offers men, newspaper has endeavored ‘chopped the danger being off’ the present facts, de- as best we could payroll on a few minutes notice to termine them. every who worker dares criticize the any “It has not been our intention government in which manner the local way of con- add fuel to the fires [sic] operated.” troversy any of a for because dislike March 26 the News-Miner Also on member a government. So page front headline stated “COUNCIL concerned, as we are Fairbanks .far May 6, followed On newly appointed SETS FIRE DEPT. PROBE” 1957the Fire advising that item Chief Marvin leaders and a news L. Raaum addressed letter City the former large Manager backed group reading of citizens Slankard fol- ' : city dispute and that lows fire chief in the charge into the council had decided to look “ ‘The Golden Heart of Alaska’ disregarded com- City Manager that the had his plaints fire chief and of the dismissed FAIRBANKS FIRE DEPARTMENT March department. item of Another news Fairbanks, Alaska five the News-Miner advised city department meeting called aat heads ‘The Midnight Land of the Sun’ editor, News- morning, which the 6,May attend, that the Miner was invited to stated Mr. M. W. Slankard state, purpose once was to meeting City Manager City solidly again, they behind Fairbanks, Manager current Matt Slankard Alaska views controversy. reported the The item Subject: department Suspension duty heads various of the any trouble effect had had never Grant an in- Francisco for City Manager, discussing problems period with the definite of time been en- leadership that the had manager’s Dear Mr. Slankard: tirely adequate firemen and that the May 4th, On p. m., 5at :00 I it found discipline obliga- forgotten and their about necessary suspend Grant superiors. tions to period indefinite of time for-.. gross negligence duty. while in line of May News-Miner, 3 the in an editorial On pack pumps As will Persists”, be mentioned in Controversy “A titled That stat- report, I would like to first mention part: ed in Department that the Fire prac- makes spring, “Not even the arrival of tice, prevention reasons, fire of' sems, bring will an end to [sic] burning grass requested dead on lots persistent controversy that surrounds *7 by various city. of citizens this In city controversy manager. the This type this burning, pack pumps are the sparked by firing was off the of four most necessary piece equipment. of city’s department, men from the fire May and has smoldered ever since.” On 4th fireman Grant Francisco relatively fireman, and a new Robert editorial went on to that mention dead', Hathan, were detailed to burn controversy quite all engaged the were grass p. from various lots. At 1:00 m. bitter, city upheaval the that continued was they combating grass were fire on doing good, town no that a the committee Airport Road. At equipped' this time I appointed to look into the matter had so pack their truck pumps. with two new really nothing far uncovered conclusive. just which I had borrowed from the suggested The editorial that committee the Department Forestry pack as our get redouble its efforts to at the bottom pumps on order had not arrived. controversy and bring the the business to a pointed that p. head and out as result of the About 3 :00 m. Grant Francisco al dispute government the seemed to be his truck ou(t) lowed to run [sic] petty descending into a bickering, world process gas while of burning a. n strife, controversy, blows, trickery low in the one hundred lot block on First (cid:127) things. a number of other It ended Avenue. This could have been an er- by stating duty it City However, that was the ror. his while truck was to move in he, Council and effect some gas, sort a supposedly experienced out permanent settlement. fireman and without the authority to- 2,200 operating engine and that so, permission to a citizen gave >do n burnthe speed at a higher very quickly was the lot which grass engine. speed through truck. ruin from the feet His located about 200 per streets was hour. often 30 miles for spare gas Upon my with arrival neglected He for at to even slow down n highly, truck, began to blaze this lot stop least three signs. feet two than grass as was more My suspicions confirmed being were to burn liigh. beginning It was then that this Francisco been drawn into has ask- I -a fence two lot. on sides that controversy current to the extent pump pack ed him over to take he by group that was has been asked that hung fire. and stated He back to, n there department terminated from this truck. pack pumps on the were no way, operational endanger some pack I two new asked him where the efficiency department this pumps equipped I had were that good name has been established that previously. truck hours with several suspicions past My six weeks. now. they 'He that there stated weren’t were I confronted confirmed when that then Fireman Hothan stated [sic] City Garage with the pump on pack there was old above. He had raced admitted he toit I asked him to take truck. Then engine Seagraves. did. extinguish it, he fire stated, you, trying T hurt am not be- going .Later when I learned that just I am man’. Marv. one after burned, he being tween that were lots background Further intentional on the by had stopped the station and that, wrecking Seagraves pumps. pack .set off the two new supervision termi- under of the now and con- I returned to the Fire Station Department nated officers of the Fire depart- with other officersof the sulted continually Seagraves when the whether not Francisco’s ment breaking being down and blame was find- Our Actions had been deliberate. placed Garage re- very likely were. ings pairing right placed it and blame on the into "We he would be called decided City Manager seeing for not that it was n office Monday morning question- repaired right, there were con- radio, ing. then ordered He was tinual statements Burnett im- Jack return to station. plying that desire Woodcox’s my possible p. getting everything I was into be done to About 4:45 m. *8 put Seagraves (cid:127)car, parked the out of alongside was the commission. which I saw included Burnett ordering then Francisco This fire station. Jack Seagraves Seagraves the with driver the leaving the station the to drive at top speed City Garage gas to a fire College to Tieaded hunch, Upon engine I arrival decided to follow area. ex- truck. On a was kept using gears, tremely although overheated and He lower it Trim. racing pump still run it would back and forth (cid:127)shifting very pressure. very fast, exceeding far water at low engine Sea- operational graves the ve- made it back to the fire limits of station (cid:127)maximum power just own Being familiar with the Sea- under its it was 'hicle. say that the time later that tachometer a short I would succeeded :graves, completely 4,000 rpm range. putting out of com- often was had, just days It went city then I two mission. by a-city complete can, for a overhaul. I hefore, garage instructed garage desired, acquire signed operating that the maximum if statements mechanic oath, confirming speed the above (cid:127)engine on the tachometer under was department Charged at the time “2. that a current member firemen on occurred, force, allegedly who is in cahoots this [sic] members, discharged with the has tried men terminated It is evident that the sabotage city to equipment. regard no department have this letters, charges “Raaum made the de- whatsoever, this for the welfare of dispatched one of which he com- citi- partment safety of the or for the AFB, manding officer of Ladd to re- city. I would like zens of this City Manager other to Matt Slank- restraining peat my request a court ard. men these restraining sought order be activities from their current “Attempted to Lure department. this so detrimental to “Specifically, charged Rauum [sic] re- this I would like include with Ladd attempted chief to lure has be port Inspector Hartwell city inspector new fire job. from his means, been offered devious [sic] Hartwell, Robert succeeded Bob who ac- position will very if desirable he Murray, alleged been called de- cept position this and leave position Ford’s home and offered a He, days. partment within ten Ladd, providing he would take it on course, down. turned the offer has short notice. members Grant Francisco has stated city “The chief claimed that Ladd he is on department he feels AFB chief has used on similar tactics it neces- if he finds borrowed time but department. other members of the He has department sary to leave this alleged that the sympa- Ladd is in chief very good job and states been offered a thy depart- with members it much better than this one. recently discharged. ment who were submitted, Respectfully “Suspicious Actions L. Raaum Marvin Fire Chief charges sabotage, “In his Chief :jr” MLR Francisco, Raaum named Grant who permanently fired from the force was delivered copy of the letter A above May 4th. about three editor of the News-Miner charged Francisco, “Raaum at the press and on before deadline hours instigation of B. Woodcox E. printed the fol- date News-Miner same discharged, others who were had at- ac- the basis for this lowing item which is tempted put Seagraves engine fire tion: out of commission. ADDS FUEL “FIRE CHIEF “Raaum stated that first of all Fran- THE FIRE TO allowedthe truck gas cisco to run out of Ladd Has Been In- “Charges Chief dangerously while close to a brush fire. volved Here Later, he drove the truck in a reckless controversy manner, racing engine beyond civic bubbled “Fairbanks’ *9 today, newly again this time with maximum safe RPM. over appointed Fire Raaum Chief Marv charged acts, “Raaum these to- turning gas. gether' suspicious actions, with other today separate he: to him “In letters indicate that Francisco desires department equipment.” wreck fire Charged that the Ladd AFB “1. Fire attempted key Appellant’s point Ford has lure first is Chief the trial away personnel reorganized in request from the court erred not granting its for City Department. judgment notwithstanding Fire the verdict be-
793 in damages prevent a under answer comm was made its publication (cid:127)cause the and there unication.3 Each such is privilege privilege condi qualified or conditional upon tional publication was made existence of a of state evidence that no public facts which causing harm make it interest purpose of for the sole protect person speaking writing, or appellee. though even may an individual be defamed embodies law defamation of as a result. If the privilege conditional is public policy individuals important by speaker abused the writer or it is lost rep enjoy their generally be free to should legal he must answer for the conse unimpaired by and defama false utations quences publication. of his tory is a well estab But there attacks. In the con situa case before us we are policy that certain counter lished public cerned with the ac privilege interest conditional paramount a there is tions freely by newspapers publish corded speak law persons to or write permitting report government official, of a possibility even being restrained without may though report In such situations contain false a action.1 of defamation defamatory privilege en rec speaking said to matter. This is^ or is person writing ognized pub because it is considered in the privilege. joy a lic interest information be made avail general types privilege of Two able place public as to what takes af They by the law. are: absolute recognized upon any fairs. It is based idea that qualified. or On and conditional public, member if he were of a mind do public it is in the interest to ground that to, might inquire and determine the facts witnesses, officers, attorneys, so, judicial reporter being merely for himself—the a jurors, government executive legislators, substitute such individual effort.4 ab are accorded the officers and others privilege publication on the is conditioned privilege publishing false solute complete accurate account of defamatory within certain limitat matter report report. contents If the is not qualified conditional ions.2 Numerous or publica completely to be covered upon public a privileges are based accorded any tion, abridgment then abstract or policy recognizes that it is essential which report publication must be fair. The be given shall when that true information solely not have been made must reasonably necessary pro for the ever it is person harm purpose causing def interests, of one’s the interests tection own amed.5 persons, or the of third interests protection report was in public. given, If were not the form such Here capable persons supplying from Fire Chief Raaum to the the fear of of a letter para- might Manager reporting such information that have to the first body Daily News, nicipal corporation 1. or of em- v. Passaic 30 N.J. Swede (1959). perform public 320, powered 36, 42 law to 153 A.2d although duty privileged, it contains Restatement, (1938). 2. Torts 585-591 §§ defamatory, if false and matter which is Restatement, Torts, Scope pre- 3. Note See ceding complete “(a) § 593 accurate and or fair abridgment proceedings, of such Daily News, 4. v. Passaic 30 N.J. Swede 36, Prosser, 320, (1959); A.2d 43 solely purpose “(b) made for the 1959). (2d ed. Torts 623 causing person harm to the de- Restatement, (1938) § Torts famed.” Daily News, supra v. Passaic states: Swede See publication 43; judicial 4, report of a and Sciandra v. “The 353 A.2d note Dynett, proceedings, proceedings legisla- Pa. of a 187 A.2d 588- *10 apply body (1963), approve or or tive administrative an execu- 589 Restatement, States, § tive officer of rule of The Torts 611 United Territory thereof, (1938) or State or a mu- without discussion. 794 $10,000 punitive- suspended ages the sum of indefinitely
graph that he had $5,000. damages in the sum of in the gross negligence while Francisco for para- following 12 duty. line of In the contends- the News-Miner Since his reasons graphs the Chief stated appeal complained on that the article suspicions expressed his suspension and accuracy summary awas of substantial Since motives. concerning Francisco’s ruled, it that have so the trial court should an was letter disputed that was not necessary compare those becomes for us to munic- report officer from one official portions report which are the news municipal- ipality officer of to another privilege with claimed to have abused the covering publication ity, News-Miner portions report upon of the official the condition privileged if report was which they were based. satis- privilege was existence of the for the Paragraph news- numbered two of the a fair fied, e., publication was. i. if item stated: question be- The summary report. Charged should “2. that a current member of trial court whether the fore us is force, allegedly that the con- who cahoots of law a matter have ruled as members, publication discharged with the has tried and that the had been met dition argues, sabotage equipment.” News-Miner privileged, as the was jury question for the this was or whether Further in the item it along news was evidence, contend- as from the determine stated: byed Francisco. charges sabotage, “In his Chief Francisco, Raaum who named Grant complained publication Where permanently fired from the force light most favorable viewed of is May 4th.” minds in the reasonable plaintiff and differ judgment could not of fair exercise “sabotage” do words “cahoots” The the condition question of whether on the question appear in Raaum’s letter. was satis privilege letter, for the existence whether, abstracting the fied, the conclusion come to which, but could employed words as News-Miner been, duty then it is it had per- average commonly understood that the matter of law as a to rule court son, exaggerated meaning or distorted But if the privileged.6 publication was it became unfair the extent room that there is dispute so are in facts abridgment. among diversity opinion reasonable partnership, as col- defined “Cahoots” is the condition whether men as average Using that definition the lusion.8 question as to the existence met, then inferred that Francisco reader could be submitted privilege should being partnership with charged with jury.7 who had been ter- firemen group of minated, had acted in that he collusion jury along was submitted case This group. with instructions, special verdict form with 40 commonlyunderstood, it is “Sabotage”, as interrogatories and forms containing two waste or “malicious destruction of jury specifically means verdict. general by workmen, property employer’s on its de- against the News-Miner .an found Using labor troubles”.9 this defini- privilege during and conditional truth fenses average reader of the news item compensatory dam- tion and awarded Dictionary 595, Lynett, New International Pa. A.2d 8. Webster’s v. 409 187 6. Sciandra 1960); City (2d (1963); 86, ed. Abilene v. v. Williams Standard- 374 5 592 370, (Tex.Civ.App. Luhn, Co., 31, S.W.2d 371 65 Utah 27 P.2d Pub. 83 Examiner 1933). 1 (1933). Dictionary Daily News, International New 9. Webster’s 30 N.J. v. Passaic Swede 1960); People (2d Malley, ed. v. A.2d
795 above, had Following Raaum Raaum stated: that could have inferred to mali- charged had acted that Francisco “It is evident that the men terminated equipment. fire ciously destroy city’s department regard this no have whatsoever, welfare of this de- eighth letter paragraph of Raaum’s partment safety or for the stated: city. citizens of I like to this would My suspicions being were confirmed repeat my request that court restrain- into that Francisco has been drawn ing sought restraining be order these extent controversy to the this current men from their activities which current group by that been asked he has department.” are so this detrimental to depart- from this that was terminated appears It to, way, endanger the ment us. some that “cahoots” accurate- ly depart- operational efficiency relationship describes the of this which Raaum claimed good that has been existed ment and the name between Francisco and the My discharged past six “My established this weeks. firemen. Raaum said sus- picions I suspicions con- being were confirmed when confirmed” that Fran- City Garage cisco had been at the dispute fronted Francisco drawn into the that he that he He admitted had been with the above. asked group to en- Seagraves. operational danger engine had efficiency raced (cid:127) stated, trying to hurt department. T am not stated, Then he He “My later suspi- just man’. I am one you, Marv. cions were confirmed” when after Francisco was ; confronted “with the above” that he ad- Preceding the above Raaum ex- had mitted he had engine raced the plained in some detail how-he had followed Seagraves and then stated “I am try- day that as he drove the Francisco Sea- ing you, just to hurt I am Marv. one graves through town and observed after had Appellee argues man”. that “cahoots” in- excessively, gears the lower that he used collusion, implies unsavory cludes beyond engine far its maximum raced the True, purpose. exactly but what limits and drove at an excessive operational report. Raaum his charging was Following speed. quoted the above rate report Raaum stated in the that paragraph, appears It also that “sabotage” is an ac- supervision discharged under curate description abbreviated of what Seagraves intentionally charging Raaum was was that firemen Francisco had operated city equipment. to do to tried such manner regularly After de- scribing continually in detail how he being garaged for re- it was observed that Seagraves, Francisco abuse the inadequate re- the blame for Raaum pairs, with re- ported that he City Manager confronted being placed on the pairs with the facts and that racing in- admitted on each occasion. One garage and the engine just and stated that he the driver was where after was related stance Interpreted one man. discharged the context of firemen to one of ordered report, fire, that only entire one man could speed top at to a Seagraves drive the City Manager. upon report its arrival overheated defi- it was so nitely points out pump racing the engine could water fire that it; Seagraves quickly time ruin A short later it was pressure. at low former Fire Chief Woodcox garage reported the machine necessary to possible desiring everything Raaum stated that he be complete overhaul. done Seagraves put out statements from fire- commission sworn obtain could place Manager. blame on order to the above. confirming men (1918) McLennen, ; (1920); 597, 48, v. 116 Cal.App. State Wash. P. 54 194 49 612, Moilen, P. 319 140 Minn. v. also State See 347-349, 1 A.L.R. N.W. *12 796 report opinion portion
In result of Francisco’s acts could have caused our of this interpretation. equipment. susceptible only the loss of fire one is part- acting- Francisco was That is that portion Last to be considered is that discharged nership or collusion with stated, per- was news item which “who firemen; to disable he had tried that May manently 4th fired from force on admis- by his own that equipment fire ** * ”, Francisco. referring to maliciously because he had done sion 4th, report stated, May at 5:00 “On Raaum’s Managér he “after” the was p. m., suspend necessary I Grant found period Francisco n an of time indefinite charges true is Raaum’s were Whether nn » The question with. a we are not concerned report an of munici- official letter was privi acquire the In order line of pal in the government submitted required to lege was not the News-Miner public superior. duty It was to his language contained use the exact published. If report be interest that summary substantial report. A Raaum’s embellished, distorted, report was not News-Miner accuracy The is sufficient.10 by the rendered unfair exaggerated or wording was sub argues that the above publication abridgment, its its manner of that rea stantially accurate. We believe would have had The court privileged. was could differ as to whether sonable minds of law. as a matter so rule substantially the “permanently fire” means suspension and thing as an indefinite same applies ruling to the same question de is a which should have been charged had that Raaum statement jury. cided acting “instigation” at was Francisco discharged fire and the other of Woodcox summary, should have In the trial court “in argues that the word men. portions law that all ruled as a matter of report. appear in the does not stigation” of, complained the News-Miner article with true, report charged Wood- but This exception that Fran- of the assertion discharged firemen with other cox and the fired”, “permanently cisco had been report. responsibility abridgments for the commencement fair of Raaum’s As assertion, question to this of whether encouraging the sabotage and for efforts substantially fair and ac- or not it was a continuance, be restrained asked that report abridgment curate should have order, that Francisco had stated by court jury given to the to decide. endanger group” “been asked equipment efficiéncy operational privilege The conditional would request. responded had that he publication be abused and lost if the solely purpose causing for the made are the same with re views Our question harm to Francisco. The is wheth paragraph of the news last spect to the an submitted er this was issue to be part, charged “Raaum stated item jury for determination. acts, together with other sus these ” * * * Appellee ar actions. Here the evidence was clear picious suspicious report actions were overwhelming “other” that the news gues that no plain -is publications Raaum’s letter. It long one in a series of mentioned report reported developments that he viewed Fran regularly Raaum’s had allowing great public the fire truck to run matter of interest. act of Under cisco’s proximity parked in close circumstances the court these gas while out of deliberate, publication even though accept as a fact that the grass burning purpose it could have been er fulfilled the for which at least admitted he accorded, obviously suspicious. regardless privilege Raaum was what- ror. Lynett, 595, 187 10. Sciandra v. A.2d Pa. ning.12 was, publisher he If found that it personal motives ever other mea *13 no jury question would submit to then that the the follow It would
harbored.
the
finding
whether such
a
that
was or
not
jury
justified
assertion
was
be
could
Fran-
and
solely
substantially
abridgment
to harm
fair
accurate
publication was made
the
portion
report.
case
of the corresponding
of this
Under the facts
the
cisco.
a
jury
as
but
rule
The
should
be instructed that in mak
judge had no alternative
not
publication
ing
they
was
their
law
the
determination
matter of
that
should
the
whole,
as
privilege insofar
consider the
of the
news item as a
nor
abuse
report
entirety,
only
were concerned. Raaum’s
of the News-Miner
in its
that
motives
but
portion of the news item
to them
submitted
ap
by
question raised
The second
and
portion
the corresponding
Raaum’s
justified
court was
pellant
the
is whether
report.
the jury
If
the
were to find that
question
the
submitting
jury
assertion was not such a fair and substan
Publish
In Fairbanks
punitive damages.
tially
abridgment,
accurate
then
be
that
we said
Company v. Pitka11
ing
have to determine whether
assertion
ac
may
damages
be awarded
punitive
fore
by
was understood
those to
it was
whom
ac
exist,
we defined
must
malice
tual
communicated
being defamatory,13
enmity, hatred, spite
will,
as “ill
malice
tual
so,
if whether and to what
extent
fame,
plaintiff in her
injure
or
desire
was damaged
jury
the defamation. The
degrade,
or to
profession
reputation
would not consider the
mo
News-Miner’s
disgrace her.”
ridicule or
in making
assertion,
is,
tives
that wheth
er
malice;
or not actuated
actual
case, conditional
In
Pitka
punitive
therefore
damages
be
would not
are
Here we
involved.
was not
privilege
involved.
privilege,
with conditional
concerned
publica
if the
rule that
adopting
question
The next
is whether er
ac
substantially
a
complained was
tion
Francisco,
ror was committed in permitting
report of
abridgment
fair
curate and
objection,
over
testify
as to his financial
made
was not
official
governmental
condition at
publication.
the time of
causing harm
purpose of
solely for the
timely objection
overruling
After
liability.
defamed,
is no
there
person
judg-e
trial
stated that he would discuss the
concerned,
type
publication
Where
at a later
Fran-
matter with counsel
time.
be
not to
publisher are
the motives
“pretty
cisco then testified that he was
well
degrees malice.
in terms of
determined
broke”;
that he
debts at
owed
the time
may be considered
damages
Punitive
suspended
department;
the fire
mak
reason for
that the sole
is found
if it
baby
that
had had
month be-
his wife
person
harm the
publication
ing
fore;
that he was unable to meet his bills
should
court
defamed. Since
job
and that unless he found a
within
publica
law that the
a matter of
ruled as
he was
month
“dead”.
privilege so
not an abuse
tion was
After the noon recess and before court
News-Miner were
motives of the
far as the
convened counsel for the News-Miner cited
concerned,
jury could not consider
14 and Hartley
Perrine v. Winters
v. New-
damages.
punitive
awarding
matter of
Morning Ledger
por-
ark
Co.15 and read
of this case
to the judge, asking
On a retrial
tions of the latter case
testimony
wheth
jury
have to determine
be stricken
judge would first
and the
“per
Francisco was
instructed
it had no relation to
law-
er
assertion
defamatory
capable
judge
of a
manently fired” was
suit.
stated
he would al-
190,
Restatement,
614(2)
99,
(1938).
Opinion
P.2d
195
13.
§
No.
376
Torts
11.
1962).
(Alaska
(1887).
14.
Iowa
cause plaintiff. was, meaning. If then he he finds that it question jury should submit to the reasons, I foregoing conclude
For the whether article was or was not a fair judge trial on a retrial of this case the substantially abridgment the News- accurate first determine whether should article, por- just report.1 some selected Miner Co., Dealers, 803, (10th Pub. 240 Mo. v. Pulitzer chine 260 P.2d See Jones 808 441, (1912); Lawyers 1958); 200, Seimiller, 144 445 Bennett v. 175 S.W. Cir. Co., 764, Co-Operative 926, (1954); Pub. Pub. Co. v. West Kan. 267 P.2d 929 Lan (1898). Ass’n, App.Div. 1120 cour v. Herald & Globe 111 N.Y.S. Vt. Sewing Centers, 253, 257-258, Inc. 17 A.2d also Atlas v. 132 A.L.R. Cf. Sewing Independent Ma- National Ass’n of