Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Nicklaus
Decision Date | 03 February 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 17421.,17421. |
Parties | DUN & BRADSTREET, INC., Appellant, v. G. C. NICKLAUS, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Fordyce Wood Products, Inc., Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Robert V. Light, Little Rock, Ark., made argument for appellant and filed brief.
Henry W. Gregory, Jr., Pine Bluff, Ark., made argument for appellee and filed brief with H. Murray Claycomb, Pine Bluff, Ark.
Before VOGEL and MATTHES, Circuit Judges, and HARPER, District Judge.
This is an appeal in a libel action where trial to a jury resulted in a verdict against defendant (appellant) for $40,000.00 actual damages and $10,000.00 punitive damages.
Appellant (also referred to as Dun & Bradstreet or defendant) is a mercantile agency which gathers, evaluates and disseminates to its subscribers confidential credit information. Fordyce Wood Products, Inc. (also referred to as Fordyce or plaintiff) was engaged in the business of manufacturing various wood products in Fordyce, Arkansas, and from 1955 until the time of trial of this cause in December, 1962, was under the management of John H. Stucker, an experienced woodworking manufacturer. In early 1963, plaintiff was adjudged a bankrupt; thereafter, the trustee was substituted as appellee.
A Notice of Tax Lien (26 U.S.C.A. § 6321) was filed on November 28, 1960, on behalf of the United States against plaintiff in the office of the Circuit Clerk and Recorder of Dallas County, Arkansas, for delinquent taxes withheld by plaintiff from wages paid to its employees for the second quarter of 1960, and penalty for late payment for the first quarter.
On November 29, 1960, Mrs. Morgan, a "record item correspondent" for Dun & Bradstreet in Dallas County, examined the lien records and completed a printed form to report the filing of the lien. While Mrs. Morgan was in the Circuit Clerk's office on November 29th she overheard a deputy clerk say that Mr. Bradley, who had filed the Notice of Tax Lien, had remarked that he was going to the bank and file it. Mrs. Morgan sent her report to the Dun & Bradstreet office in Little Rock, where the following report was prepared and sent to fifty-one Dun & Bradstreet subscribers who had previously requested information regarding Fordyce:
Initial distribution of this report was on December 6, 1960.
On March 6, 1961, plaintiff became aware that this report had been published. This resulted in the publication of the following report on March 6, 1961, which was distributed to forty-eight of the fifty-one subscribers who had received the first report, as follows:
The lien was satisfied of record on December 1, 1960. On December 5, 1961, Fordyce filed this suit against Dun & Bradstreet alleging that these two reports were false and defamatory, had been published by defendant with malice, and had caused plaintiff to sustain actual damages. Punitive damages were also sought. Trial to a jury resulted in a verdict against defendant for $40,000.00 actual damages and $10,000.00 punitive damages. Defendant contends that the verdict should be reversed and dismissed, or in the alternative, reversed and remanded for new trial.
The appellant complains that the court committed error in instructing the jury that the reports were false as a matter of law. Instructions must be considered as a whole. The court instructed the jury in part as follows:
The defendant contends that the giving of the preceding paragraph was error. The defendant properly objected to this part of the instruction at the time of the trial. In order to properly determine whether such was error, it is necessary that the entire charge be examined, and it is pertinent that we set out a part of the charge which immediately followed that part of which the appellant complains:
While the trial court instructed the jury that the reports were false as a matter of law, the instruction in the next two paragraphs clearly points out to the jury why the reports were false, and further points out that that part of the reports regarding the filing of an internal revenue tax lien against plaintiff with the Circuit Clerk of Dallas County, Arkansas, was true.
The jury was immediately thereafter told that the mere fact the statements were false was not alone sufficient to justify their returning a verdict for the plaintiff, but the plaintiff had to further prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the statements, or at least one of them, were defamatory and that the falsity and the defamatory nature of the statement or statements was the proximate cause of damage to the plaintiff to recover.
The court did not need to present the question of falsity of the reports to the jury since there were no fact questions for the jury to consider. The court properly instructed the jury that the false parts of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Breeding v. Massey
...reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Nicklaus, 8 Cir., 340 F.2d 882, 885; Hanson v. Ford Motor Co., 8 Cir., 278 F.2d 586, The motions would be entitled to be sustained only if there is no s......
-
Grove v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
...especially those cited by the district court, we believe it was sufficient for the jury's consideration. Cf. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Nicklaus, 340 F.2d 882 (C.A.8, 1965). Since the proofs were largely the same at the two trials, we might well view our prior holding as dispositive of the i......
-
Luster v. Retail Credit Co., 77-1634
...of this case we are satisfied that the award of punitive damages against the defendant is not warranted. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Nicklaus, 340 F.2d 882 (8th Cir. 1965), is distinguishable factually from the present case. In Nicklaus, the defendant published a second false report after bei......
-
Bloomfield v. Retail Credit Co.
...but, rather, one which suggests a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the published material. See Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., v. Nicklaus, 340 F.2d 882 (8th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 825, 86 S.Ct. 57, 15 L.Ed.2d 70. In the present case, the jury was told by instruction #18 t......