Agriss v. Roadway Express, Inc. case brief
483 A.2d 456 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)
SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff employee appealed the en banc order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County (Pennsylvania), which granted defendant employer's motion for a compulsory nonsuit and which held that plaintiff's evidence failed to prove a cause of action for defamation.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff employee worked as a truck driver for defendant employer. He had also been elected as a shop steward for the union. Plaintiff received a warning letter that stated that he violated company policy or contract by opening company mail. The accusation in the warning letter was false and plaintiff followed the normal grievance procedure. Plaintiff stated that when he returned from vacation, he received comments and questions about the warning letter from other workers and union officials. Plaintiff filed a defamation action against defendant. The trial court granted defendant's motion for a compulsory nonsuit.
HOLDING:
On appeal, the court determined that plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to reach a jury and that the nonsuit should be removed. The court held that the words, opening company mail, were susceptible of defamatory meaning, that a jury question was created on the issue of excessive publication, that plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to prove actual harm, and that libel was actionable without proof of special harm. The court remanded the case for a new trial.
RULES:
Plaintiff's burden of proof in a defamation case is set out in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a): Burden of plaintiff. -- In an action for defamation, plaintiff has the burden of proving, when the issue is properly raised: (1) The defamatory character of the communication. (2) Its publication by defendant. (3) Its application to plaintiff. (4) The understanding by the recipient of its defamatory meaning. (5) The understanding by the recipient of it as intended to be applied to plaintiff. (6) Special harm resulting to plaintiff from its publication. (7) Abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion.
OUTCOME: The order that granted defendant employer's motion for a compulsory nonsuit was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial because the court thought the words, opening company mail, in a company warning letter were capable of a defamatory meaning and circumstantial evidence showed that defendant was responsible for the letter's wide dissemination.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
483 A.2d 456 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984)
SYNOPSIS:
Plaintiff employee appealed the en banc order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County (Pennsylvania), which granted defendant employer's motion for a compulsory nonsuit and which held that plaintiff's evidence failed to prove a cause of action for defamation.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff employee worked as a truck driver for defendant employer. He had also been elected as a shop steward for the union. Plaintiff received a warning letter that stated that he violated company policy or contract by opening company mail. The accusation in the warning letter was false and plaintiff followed the normal grievance procedure. Plaintiff stated that when he returned from vacation, he received comments and questions about the warning letter from other workers and union officials. Plaintiff filed a defamation action against defendant. The trial court granted defendant's motion for a compulsory nonsuit.
HOLDING:
On appeal, the court determined that plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to reach a jury and that the nonsuit should be removed. The court held that the words, opening company mail, were susceptible of defamatory meaning, that a jury question was created on the issue of excessive publication, that plaintiff's evidence was sufficient to prove actual harm, and that libel was actionable without proof of special harm. The court remanded the case for a new trial.
RULES:
Plaintiff's burden of proof in a defamation case is set out in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a): Burden of plaintiff. -- In an action for defamation, plaintiff has the burden of proving, when the issue is properly raised: (1) The defamatory character of the communication. (2) Its publication by defendant. (3) Its application to plaintiff. (4) The understanding by the recipient of its defamatory meaning. (5) The understanding by the recipient of it as intended to be applied to plaintiff. (6) Special harm resulting to plaintiff from its publication. (7) Abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion.
OUTCOME: The order that granted defendant employer's motion for a compulsory nonsuit was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial because the court thought the words, opening company mail, in a company warning letter were capable of a defamatory meaning and circumstantial evidence showed that defendant was responsible for the letter's wide dissemination.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment