*1 damages are punitive al and not recoverable showing
without a of actual malice.11 correctly plain- The trial court ruled that complaint tiffs failed to state a cause of action. The issue as to whether or not the and, privileged
defendants’ statements were therefore, immune need not be reviewed
since we hold that the has failed to state a cause of actionable slander. We
therefore, decline to discuss this issue at the
present time. is affirmed. No costs are
awarded.
CROCKETT, HALL, MAUGHAN and JJ., concur.
WILKINS, J., concurs in result. SMITH, Appellant, Randall Plaintiff and MAHONEY, capacity in his as Di Jack rector of the Financial Division, Department of Public
Safety, Respondent. Defendant and
No. 15579. Supreme Court of Utah.
Jan. Sons, Maloney H. (1974), 11. Thomas & Inc. v. E. W. cert. denied 423 U.S. Co., Scripps App.2d 43 Ohio 334 N.E.2d
apply to the [Department] a hearing for on the of propriety suspension. the license application In the event an for a hearing provided by timely this section is filed plain- Billings, City, Lake for Lucy Salt by operator, the the suspension of the appellant. tiff and of operator license said shall not take Gen., Hansen, Atty. M. B. Bruce Robert [Department] effect until the determines Gen., Hale, City, Lake for Atty. Salt Asst. hearing from the results of the that there respondent. and defendant probability is of liability part on the of
operator.
the uninsured HALL, Justice: Department The plaintiff sent an “Order of seeks reversal of an order the Plaintiff Suspension” of which was to become effec- (hereinafter Safety Department of Public 8,1977 tive as of (twenty days after suspending his driver’s “Department”) signed), the order was he deposited unless
license, hearing he has had a as to the until the security or established an ex- liability damages. for probability emption as set out on the side reverse declaratory judgment also Plaintiff seeks large capital form. In letters at the bottom right him of his that the of the front of side the form it reads “IM- hearing violates the due such a PORTANT—SEE REVERSE SIDE.” The the United and Utah Con- clauses of States reverse side lists categories first the five stitutions. an exemption may evidence2 which be May 22, 1977, plaintiff established, was involved then, again On in capital letters it Memory in a motor vehicle accident near says “ANYTIME PRIOR TO THE EFFEC- Lake Utah. Grove in Salt At the time TIVE DATE OF YOUR SUSPENSION A of the accident was covered auto- LIABILITY, HEARING AS TO WILL BE thereby bringing REQUEST.” GRANTED UPON YOUR into the effect Utah Motor Plaintiff request did not and Safety which Vehicle Act1 the order suspension became effective. requires an deposit uninsured motorist to days later, Three on August plain- in an amount security determined tiff’s counsel the Department asked for a suspension or face of his hearing as to the probability liability, “security-or-suspension” license. This re- claiming plaintiff had not had actual however, is not applicable, if a notice of right hearing. his to a This re- (1) either “exemp- driver can establish an quest denied, day plaintiff and the next U.C.A., 41-12-5 or 6 or tion” under petition filed a review of the denial in depart- determination from obtain a district court. After oral argu- is public safety “probabili- ment of no form, ments examining the written part ty liability” on his district petition court dismissed the on the in the accident. sustained ground the plaintiff form adequately gave to avoid procedure notice of rights. his U.C.A., 1953, out option is set this second 41-12-2(c): It should first be noted that hav any twenty after days
At time within privilege, right, license is a anot [Department] notice that the providing holders of presumed a license are to know suspending operator’s license because law upon privilege which the is condi However, tioned. process requires no an uninsured tice intention terminate the license suspended may whose license is to be an opportunity prior for hearing there- U.C.A., seq. categories et capital 41-12-1 2. The are listed letters and explanation thereof is in lower case letters. THE COURT: I’m question thing trying we are only Therefore to.3 determine, this case is wheth- to answer in the crux of matter upon my this called er simply question his notice of had whether the effect actual notice of the probabili- to determine rights a>-e involved was forcibly form believe liability. his ty of brought to Mr. by your Smith’s attention *3 clear adequately is by the used document that he so knew that he had to and hearing to impart of the notice days come period within ten of this no- process requirements. meets due time. That’s the crux this case my in adequately in- by plaintiff received tice judgment. pre- a he was entitled to him that formed The trial specifically court found that the hearing whether to determine form sent to the and received he probability that a reasonable there was provided adequate him of his rights notice fol- This manifest was at fault. them, how to and exercise which conclusion coun- interchange defense lowing between hereby we affirm. and court trial: sel —in this case MR. WASSERMAN: No costs awarded. not have actual client did fact that our to, is— agreed been notice has ELLETT, J., CROCKETT, J., C. con- had again. He Say that THE COURT: cur. (Indicating.) this notice. had notice. He MR. WASSERMAN: Justice, MAUGHAN, dissenting: right. actually not aware He was reasons, following For the I dissent. Be- Notice, he right. Oh. All THE COURT: us is order appeal fore from an of the Awareness, not had. may have got. he dismissing petition district court Smith’s Well, use— if I MR. WASSERMAN: (1) respondent’s reversal order suspend- what I even know THE don’t COURT: operator’s license, probable his ing his until is. the difference could be established say I If awareness MR. WASSERMAN: (2) declaratory administrative similar, didn’t have actu- then he being as the notice him of a al notice. right to such a not afford him did I think it’s similar. THE don’t COURT: process required by United mailed got he this document I think States Utah Constitutions. should he read him, question is whether and the reverse and remand. Unless otherwise indi- (Indicating.) it or not. cated, are all references to the notice MR. Constructive WASSERMAN: Responsibility Safety Motor Vehicle cases, how- case Act, 12, Chapter Title Utah Code Anno- ever. (1970 Supp.1977). tated & talking no- about You are THE COURT: at his tice, actually received it and he 22,1977, May Smith was involved in On address. Memory motor vehicle accident near Grove Yes, these but MR. WASSERMAN: time Lake Utah. At the Salt cases— not covered automobile accident Iwhy asked THE That’s COURT: bringing into ef- thereby him give what have to do do fect the Act actually have you Do have to notice. requires an uninsured motorist de- Vehicles hand Motor deposit security in an amount determined explain— liver and public safety face department or No. MR. WASSERMAN: “security-or- This suspension of his license. [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] [*] suspension” requirement is not applicable, Burson, L.Ed.2d 90 U.S. 91 29 402 S.Ct. Bell however, (1) if a driver can either establish request Smith did not a hearing and the order of “exemption” under sections 41-12-5 or 6 became effective. later, days August 11,1977, Three on appel- or a determination from the de- obtain lant’s counsel respondent asked for a hear- public safety “prob- there is no partment probable as to liability, claiming that ability liability” his appellant had not had actual notice of his accident, section 41-12- sustained right to hearing. request This was denied 2(c). by respondent, day and the next appellant Respondent sent Smith an “Order Sus- petition filed a for review of the denial which was become effective pension” district court. After oral argu- (twenty days after the ments and examining form, the written signed), appellant deposit- unless order was petition district court dismissed required security ed the established an ground the form adequately gave appellant exemption as out on the reverse side of rights. set his *4 the form.1 Smith could not make the Since predicate plaintiff’s allegations As of qualify for deposit exemption, or an the the or inaccuracy incompleteness of the no- only way suspension he could avoid of his tice, which he contends constituted a denial by showing “proba- was he was license process, of due it is appropriate to review bly liable” the accident hear- Bell v. Burson.2 This case dealt the with respondent. Reference to this motor vehicle safety responsibility statute Georgia. of The option respondent’s was found on form at statute was similar to the provisions Utah only insofar that read, six the reverse side motorists paragraph on in involved accidents were post “ANYTIME TO THE PRIOR EFFECTIVE security under of penalty loss of license. DATE OF YOUR SUSPENSION A HEAR- LIABILITY, ING TO WILL BE AS recognized The court that suspension of a REQUEST.” action, GRANTED UPON YOUR driver’s license involved state part 1. The of the order reads as fol- relevant lows: IMPORTANT —SEE REVERSE SIDE proceeds: side reverse ORDER OF SUSPENSION IMPORTANT Effective Unless To Become WAYS IN WHICH YOU MAY Security ESTABLISH Deposited or AN EXEMPTION Exemption An is Established may exemption You establish an from the READ CAREFULLY requirement depositing security of Dear or connec- Sir Madam: accident, with tion and thus As a result of a motor vehicle avoid the accident which May your driving privilege, mailing on 22. 1977. in or Salt Lake occurred City. near you delivering subject or Responsibility to the Utah have become to the Financial Di- vision, security requirement provisions Department Safety, of the Finan- of Public 305 State Act, Chapter 12, Building, cial Title Office Salt Lake any following: Utah Code Annotated 1953. ONE of the you you Since have not shown that had auto- liability insurance in effect at the time 6. ANYTIME PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE accident, you exempt- of the and since have not DATE OF YOUR SUSPENSION A HEARING security yourself requirement pro- ed from the LIABILITY, AS TO WILL BE GRANTED any ways visions of the of the Act other YOUR UPON REQUEST. permitted, the must now make the following Order: side, As stated the on reverse if establish privilege operating Your a motor vehicle any exemptions, deposit the above or the upon highways of the State of Utah is security required, prior amount to the effec- suspended as of 8. 1977. UNLESS Order, date tive of this this Order will not to that date have done either of the follow- become effective. [NOTE: reference in the ing: above, side,” sentence to “the reverse should (1) Deposited security with the read, be corrected to “the obverse $6.637.00. side.”] in the amount or exemption Established from the re- 2. 402 U.S. depositing security, such any ways of the listed on the reverse side this Order. apply to the adju- licensee was commission for a of the important interest dicated; a license propriety such circumstances suspension. license complying with without application cannot be taken In the event an for a hearing requirements of process procedural provided by timely this section is filed The court Amendment. Fourteenth said: operator license of said shall not take only purpose of the
. effect until the commission Since determines security to obtain before us is provisions from the results of the that there against pay any judgments from which accident, resulting from the
the licensee
the uninsured
.
.
.
[Em-
will
hold that
we
phasis added.]
inquiry
limited to the
be satisfied
plaintiff imparted
The notice sent to
whether there is a reasona-
determination
information that
would have his license
judgments
possibility
ble
suspended
accident,
because he was in an
being
claimed
rendered
amounts
had no
and had not established
the licensee.3
exempt
security
he was
from the
require-
that under
further observed
The court
language
ment. There was no
to indicate
impor-
was an
statutory scheme
41-12-2(c)
terms of
that his
determination
factor in
State’s
tant
being suspended
because he was
license, thus the
deprive an individual
probably at fault and therefore liable to
not,
proc-
consistently with due
could
State
injured
to the
*5
respond
party.
ess,
of that factor
eliminate consideration
was not informed of his constitutional
He
The court stated that
hearing.
its
right
pre-suspension hearing
to a
situations,
process
emergency
except in
probable-cause determination as to his
to termi-
when a
seeks
requires that
State
fault.5
involved,
such as that here
nate an interest
There was a reference to the reverse side
opportunity
notice and an
it must afford
of the notice wherein the ways to establish
appropriate to the nature
exemption
were set forth. The first
effec-
becomes
before the termination
case
what were tantamount
four described
to a
The court concluded:
tive.
fault, viz.,
final determination of
evidence
then,
hold,
Georgia’s
under
from liability,
of release
evidence of an
scheme,
present
installments,
agreement
pay
to
evidence
of his driv-
may deprive petitioner
State
adjudication
nonliability,
of final
it
registration
license and vehicle
er’s
having
paid by
evidence of
been
the insur-
for the determina-
provide a forum
must
ance carrier of the other driver. The fifth
whether there is
question
tion of the
exemption involved evidence that an auto-
be-
of a
possibility
reasonable
liability policy was in effect at the
him as a result of
against
rendered
provided:
time of the accident.
sixth
.
.
.4
the accident
Anytime Prior to the Effective Date of
Bell v. Bur
ruling
response
In
to
Suspension Hearing
A
as to Liabili-
Your
son,
subdivi
enacted
legislature
ty,
Upon
Request.
Be
Your
Will Granted
41-12-2,
provides:
it
(c) to
sion
Sec.
when this
is read in
Particularly
twenty days after
any time within
At
others,
appears
context with the
it
to in-
notice that
the commission
providing
of the licensee’s
volve a final determination
because
operator’s
suspending
fault; and thus creates an erroneous im-
and nature of the
pression
type
as to the
an uninsured
accorded, viz.,
judg-
that a final
suspended may
whose license is to be
319, 334,
Eldridge, 424
5. See Mathews v.
U.S.
of 91 S.Ct.
At 540 of
entitled to a WILKINS, J., termine whether was a reasonable concurs views ex- fault, probability that he was at and a pressed in the dissenting opinion of MAU- GHAN, judgment might be rendered him as J. accident.
a result of the conception is not a Due technical time, content with a fixed unrelated circumstances; place, and it is flexible and requires protections such as the *6 particular analy- demands. In an situation important is the procedure
sis of a factor deprivation pri- of a risk of an erroneous The CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF used, procedures vate interest SAINTS, Plaintiff, LATTER-DAY value, any, if additional probable and the safeguards.6 or substitute v.
The essence of due is the re- Utah, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of person ‘a jeopardy that Thurman, L. and Ivan Defendants. given] serious the case loss notice of [be No. 15640. meet opportunity him it’. Supreme Court of Utah. necessary is All that [Citation] tailored, procedures light be Jan. 1979. made, capacities decision to be to ‘the of those to be circumstances who are they to insure are
heard’ [Citation] meaningful opportunity present case . .7 their U.S., pp. 6. Id. at of 424 S.Ct. 893. 334-335 8. Mullane v. Central Bank Hanover and Trust Co., 306, 314-315, 339 U.S. (1950). L.Ed. 865 U.S., pp. p. 7. Id. at 348-349 of 424 909 of 96 S.Ct. Co., Inc., Aguchak Montgomery Ward Alaska, 520 P.2d 1356-1357