Judy MacDONALD, Appellant, v. Jack RIGGS and Merle G. Wilson, Appellees.
No. S-12025.
Supreme Court of Alaska.
Aug. 31, 2007.
This issue is not well briefed, but Romero seems to believe that Cox is responsible for the loss of the trees, and that he is entitled to their fair value. Romero testified that the trees were worth between $800 and $1,200. Cox is aware of the argument, as he states in his brief, that Romero is requesting “reimbursement for the value of his nursery stock.” Cox asks us to “rely on the trial court‘s findings.” But a careful review of the trial court‘s findings reveals that the court did not address the apple trees. Although all conflicting testimony was resolved in Cox‘s favor, Cox did not testify about whether Romero was permitted to remove the apple trees. In fact, Cox‘s only testimony about the apple trees was that they were still on the property in July 2001. Romero‘s claim should have been decided following trial. We therefore remand for a determination whether Cox is liable for not returning the apple trees.
IV. CONCLUSION
We REMAND for a determination whether Cox was liable for not returning the apple trees. The superior court may base its decision on this claim on the record as it stands, or it may choose to allow the parties to submit additional evidence. We otherwise AFFIRM all disputed rulings by the superior court.
al property of the Defendant.” The order contains slightly self-contradictory language, permitting Cox to “dispose of any personal property remaining on the premises,” but containing an exception for “any items ... buried by snow.”
Jack L. Riggs, pro se, Anchor Point.
Before: FABE, Chief Justice, MATTHEWS, EASTAUGH, BRYNER, and CARPENETI, Justices.
OPINION
MATTHEWS, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
Judy MacDonald sued Jack Riggs for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury found for Riggs on all claims and awarded him $35,000 in damages from MacDonald on his defamation counterclaim. MacDonald appeals the superior court‘s denial of her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the counterclaim.
With respect to the three arguments that MacDonald presents, we conclude as follows:
(1) there was sufficient evidence regarding defamatory statements by MacDonald to create a jury question as to liability for defamation;
(2) MacDonald‘s statute of limitations defense fails because the date of Riggs‘s counterclaim relates back to the date of MacDonald‘s complaint; and
(3) since MacDonald‘s defamatory statements are slander per se, an award of damages could be made without proof of actual damages.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The City of Tenakee Springs passed a local ordinance prohibiting the use of motorized vehicles in many areas in and around the town. This lawsuit resulted from a dispute over whether the ordinance prohibited the use of a motorized wheelbarrow. Judy MacDonald, then a sixty-four-year-old widow, regularly used the wheelbarrow in question to haul groceries and supplies on a road that provided the only access to her property from a nearby boat landing. On one occasion she drove an excavator up the road. In 2001 the City of Tenakee Springs created a “legal research committee” to investigate the legality of the use of the wheelbarrow and the excavator on the road and appointed MacDonald‘s neighbor, Merle Wilson, chair.
After the committee was formed, Wilson took it upon himself to personally impound the wheelbarrow. In the course of the impoundment he assaulted MacDonald, striking her with either a logging chain or the metal end of a dog leash. Wilson also attempted a citizen‘s arrest, ostensibly because MacDonald tried to assault him, and took MacDonald to his nearby house. At trial Wilson claimed that his actions were in self-defense.
There was a factual dispute at trial over the extent to which Jack Riggs was involved. MacDonald claims that Riggs, an ex-boyfriend, threatened her with a rifle during the assault and that after the assault both Riggs and Wilson forced her to return to Wilson‘s house. Riggs and Wilson claim that Riggs did not appear at the scene until after the assault occurred and that he was unarmed. Riggs also claims that his actions after the attack were aimed at assisting her with her injuries.
After the attack MacDonald left Wilson‘s house and made her way to a nearby beach where other neighbors were present. A neighbor took her by boat into the center of town, where she was seen by local EMTs and had her injuries photographed. The EMTs flew her to a hospital in Juneau for additional treatment. In Juneau she was diagnosed with a skull fracture and transferred to Harborview Hospital in Seattle. She was discharged after two days at Harborview but remained in a hotel in Seattle with her daughter for a week in case she needed followup treatment. At trial Wilson suggested that MacDonald‘s injuries were not as severe as she claimed.
With respect to the lawsuit resulting in this appeal, MacDonald originally brought claims of assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Wilson, individually and in his official capacity as Chairman of the Tenakee Springs Legal Research Committee, the City of Tenakee Springs, and Riggs. MacDonald also sued the parties listed above and Mayor Vicki Wisenbaugh, individually and in her official capacity, under
III. DISCUSSION
When reviewing the denial of a motion for JNOV, our role “is not to weigh conflicting evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, but is rather to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is such that reasonable men could not differ as to their judgment.”1
MacDonald argues that there was no evidence of unprivileged defamatory statements at trial and that even if there were such evidence the statements would be time-barred by the statute of limitations. She also argues that Riggs presented no evidence that he suffered actual harm resulting from the defamatory statements.
A. Reasonable Jurors Could Find that MacDonald Made Unprivileged Defamatory Statements.
MacDonald argues that Riggs “failed to elicit or provide testimony addressing any of the elements necessary to prove a defamation claim.” The elements of defamation are “(1) a false and defamatory statement; (2) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (4) the existence of either ‘per se’ actionability or special harm.”2 It is also “necessary that the recipient of the defamatory communication understand it as intended to refer to the plaintiff.”3
There is evidence that MacDonald made unprivileged statements to third parties after the assault that could be construed as defamatory against Riggs. MacDonald testified on direct examination that when she arrived in Tenakee Springs after the attack she told a local resident, Barbara Scanlan, “what happened.” On cross-examination by Wilson, MacDonald stated the following:
A ... I sat down in the chair, and Barbara Scanlan came out....
Q And did you tell Barb Scanlan ... how you sustained your injuries?
A She asked me what happened to me, and I told her what happened.
Q As you‘ve told us here in court?
A Yes.
MacDonald‘s daughter, Cynthia Roman, testified that she was concerned about her mother‘s safety immediately after returning from Seattle because “neither one of them had been arrested. They were still out there.” (Emphasis added.) When asked about the use of the word “they” on cross-examination, Roman stated “[Riggs] was there.” A reasonable jury could infer from this testimony that MacDonald had told her daughter that Riggs threatened her with a rifle and held her captive at gunpoint.5
There is little question that MacDonald‘s statements implicating Riggs as a participant in the assault were defamatory. A statement “is defamatory if it it tends to harm the reputation of another so as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him.”6 Accusing someone of holding a woman at gunpoint in the aftermath of a vicious attack would qualify as defamatory under this definition.
A reasonable jury could also find the elements of falsity and fault. Since the jury found for Riggs, it is evident that it did not believe MacDonald‘s version of events. With respect to fault, this element is met if a person “knows that the statement is false and that it defames the other.”7 Assuming the story was false, it is unlikely that MacDonald would have told the entire story to someone, as it was told in court, without knowledge of the false and defamatory nature of her statements.
Thus, a reasonable jury relying on the evidence described above, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Riggs, could find that MacDonald knowingly made false and defamatory statements about Riggs. The statements discussed were not made in the course of any judicial proceeding and therefore were not privileged.8
MacDonald argues that even if there is evidence of defamation the jury should have been barred from considering it because of the two-year statute of limitations for defamation lawsuits.9 MacDonald filed her complaint on March 21, 2003, and Riggs filed his answer and counterclaim on April 15, 2003. MacDonald argues that because the statute of limitations on defamation is two years, Riggs was barred from relying on evidence of defamatory statements made prior to April 15, 2001. All of the evidence at trial concerned statements made after the assault occurred on April 2, 2001, but before April 15, 2001. We hold that Riggs‘s counterclaim should relate back to the date of the complaint.
Much of the Alaska jurisprudence on relation back deals with amendments to pleadings.
Many federal jurisdictions have addressed this question.11 Most federal courts have elected to toll the statute of limitations for compulsory counterclaims from the date the complaint is filed:
Although there is some conflict on the subject, the majority view appears to be that the institution of plaintiff‘s suit tolls or suspends the running of the statute of limitations governing a compulsory counterclaim. This approach precludes plaintiff, when the claim and counterclaim are measured by the same period, from delaying the institution of the action until the statute has almost run on defendant‘s counterclaim so that it would be barred by the time defendant advanced it. Nor is plaintiff apt to be prejudiced by the tolling of the statute, since he presumably has notice at the time he commences his action of any counterclaim arising out of the same transaction as his suit. Moreover, the necessarily close relationship between the timely claim and the untimely counterclaim should insure that the latter is not “stale” in the sense of evidence and witnesses no longer being available; they should be as accessible for adjudicating the counterclaim as they are for the main claim.12
We find the majority federal rule to be based on sound policy. Therefore, if Riggs‘s counterclaim is compulsory, it will relate back to the date of MacDonald‘s complaint.
Under
Slander per se includes instances where “the words impute a serious crime to the plaintiff.”14 According to the
Under Alaska law general damages for defamation per se may be awarded without any proof of damages. In City of Fairbanks v. Rice, we noted that the superior court was correct in finding that statements that are defamatory per se “obviat[e] the need for proof of damages.”19 Similarly, in Alaska Statebank v. Fairco this court upheld damages for a defamation case involving slander per se on the basis that “[p]roof of actual damages was ... not necessary to support the award[ ].”20
Even though no proof of actual damages was required given the slander per se char
The superior court instructed the jury that for Riggs to recover on his claim of defamation the jury had to find that “Riggs incurred actual harm.” Since under Alaska law proof of actual damages is not required in cases involving slander per se, this instruction may have been erroneous.22 But any error would have been favorable to MacDonald and thus may be ignored.
We therefore conclude that the superior court correctly denied MacDonald‘s motion for JNOV regarding damages.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the superior court‘s denial of the motion for JNOV because there was sufficient evidence of defamation for a reasonable jury to find for Riggs. The defamatory statements were not time-barred by the statute of limitations because Riggs‘s counterclaim relates back to the date of MacDonald‘s complaint. Since the defamatory statements in question were slander per se, Riggs did not have to provide proof of damages, and any error in the jury instructions on damages was harmless.
FABE, Chief Justice, with whom BRYNER, Justice, joins, dissenting.
I. Introduction
While the standard of review for the denial of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the
II. The Record Does Not Support the Jury‘s Verdict.
In finding a basis for the jury‘s verdict, the court cites no direct testimony of a defamatory statement, instead relying on inferences from the testimony of MacDonald and her daughter. The court relies on MacDonald‘s testimony that, upon arriving in town and in search of help, she told Barbara Scanlan “what happened.” MacDonald testified that when she arrived in town with “blood ... dripping in [her] face and in [her] mouth,” Barbara Scanlan said that she looked awful. MacDonald reported her response: “It is awful.” MacDonald then proceeded to tell Scanlan what had happened. At no point during MacDonald‘s direct testimony did she indicate that this conversation included any mention of Riggs. Nor did she mention Riggs when cross-examined about her statement to Scanlan. To conclude that MacDonald defamed Riggs, the court relies on the following interchange between MacDonald and Wilson during Wilson‘s cross-examination:
Q. And did you tell Barb Scanlan ... how you sustained your injuries?
A. She asked me what happened to me, and I told her what happened.
Q. As you‘ve told us here in court?
A. Yes.2
The court infers from this testimony that MacDonald not only mentioned Riggs to Scanlan, but that she also stated that he brandished a weapon in a manner sufficient to constitute assault. Then, to support a jury verdict with no special damages, the court concludes that this inferred statement, although nowhere laid out in testimony, was defamatory per se—a subcategory of defamation that requires that a statement “be so unambiguous as to be reasonably susceptible of only one interpretation.”3
Contrary to the inference drawn by the court, this testimony falls far short of supporting a claim that MacDonald made an unambiguous statement defaming Riggs. MacDonald testified that when she told Scanlan how she sustained her injuries, her explanation of those injuries was consistent with her testimony in court. But MacDonald did not testify in court that Riggs injured her. In fact, she testified that she sustained her injuries during Wilson‘s physical assault. Because Riggs‘s actions were not related to her injuries, this testimony does not even support a conclusion that MacDonald mentioned Riggs to Scanlan, much less that she defamed him. The only thing that can reasonably be inferred from MacDonald‘s testimony is that when she told Scanlan how she sustained her injuries, her explanation was consistent with her in-court statements.
I simply cannot agree that these vague statements support a conclusion that MacDonald made an unambiguous statement to Roman defaming Riggs. In fact, the testimony does not even allude to any statements by MacDonald—defamatory or not. And contrary to the court‘s assumption, it is not a foregone conclusion that because Roman testified that she feared for her mother‘s safety, MacDonald must have told her that Riggs assaulted her. In fact, Riggs was present at the scene, and it is eminently reasonable for a daughter to fear someone who was present at the scene of a vicious attack on her mother. And Roman testified that she was concerned about her mother‘s safety even before the attack, stating, “I had been in Tenakee the week before [the assault], and I had insisted she go to the [Village Public Safety Officer] with me because I feared for her safety.” When asked to explain her concern, Roman testified that she had been informed by a young man in town “that Merle and Riggs have tape recorders and they‘re running around and they‘re saying they‘re going to do something.” Roman also testified that she had read letters from Riggs to her mother “threatening to burn her house, threatening to poison her dogs.” In sum, Roman‘s testimony provided ample support for her fear without MacDonald having told Roman anything about Riggs‘s actions on the day of the attack. The court‘s inference that MacDonald must have told Roman that Riggs assaulted her is simply not justifiable when Roman had so many independent reasons to fear for her mother‘s safety around Riggs—including his presence at the scene of a vicious attack on her mother, his threatening letters, and a warning from a young man in town. Because the record lacks support for a finding of defamation, much less defamation per se, I would reverse the superior court‘s denial of MacDonald‘s motion for a JNOV.
III. It Was Plain Error Not To Instruct the Jury on Privilege.
Given the lack of evidence of any statement by MacDonald about Riggs, one might wonder how the jury arrived at a verdict of defamation. The jury‘s verdict can be explained by the trial court‘s failure to explain the boundaries of privilege to the jury. As a result, the jury was unaware that it could not legally base its verdict on MacDonald‘s testimony in court. Because the need for such an instruction was obvious and its omission very likely affected the jury‘s verdict, the court‘s failure to instruct the jury on privilege amounts to plain error and would require reversal even if MacDonald had not moved for a JNOV.
Although the court correctly notes that MacDonald did not object to the jury instructions,6 this does not preclude our review of the issue for plain error.7 “Plain error exists where there is an obvious mistake that creates ‘a high likelihood that the jury will follow an erroneous theory resulting in a miscarriage of justice.‘”8 The court‘s failure to instruct the jury on the boundaries of privilege in this case was an obvious mistake. The clear rule in Alaska is that witness testimony is absolutely privileged. Over thirty years ago we adopted the “virtually unanimous” position of legal authorities “that defamatory testimony by a witness in a judicial
I am fortified in this conclusion by the fact that, in addition to the absolute privilege that undoubtedly protects MacDonald‘s trial testimony, conditional privilege likely protects one of the statements on which the court today relies. We have previously recognized a conditional privilege for speech on matters of public safety.10 Thus, any statement MacDonald made to Scanlan upon her arrival in town—mere minutes after she was assaulted and her skull was fractured—may be protected by this conditional privilege. Even assuming MacDonald had mentioned Riggs to Scanlan, and even if she had had stated that Riggs had a gun—two statements that are not reflected in the record—both statements advance MacDonald‘s interest in her own safety and that of her community.11 Public policy supports the view that a crime victim seeking help mere minutes after an assault occurred should not be concerned about liability. Moreover, information about whether any of the assailants had a weapon is undoubtedly critical to law enforcement personnel who may respond to the situation.
The trial court‘s failure to instruct the jury on the issue of privilege very likely allowed the jury to reach a verdict based on an erroneous theory.12 In the absence of any direct evidence of a defamatory statement by MacDonald, the jury‘s verdict strongly suggests that it considered MacDonald‘s testimony in reaching its verdict. As a result, it is highly likely that the trial court‘s failure to instruct the jury on the boundaries of privilege affected the outcome of the case.
Because the trial court‘s failure to instruct the jury on the boundaries of privilege very likely affected the verdict in this case, and the only inference supported by the record is the inference that the jury must have mistakenly considered privileged statements in returning a verdict of defamation, I respectfully dissent from the court‘s opinion.