Arber v. Stahlin

• Decision Date: 25 March 1968
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 3397--3402,No. 1,1
• Citation: Arber v. Stahlin, 10 Mich.App. 181, 159 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. App. 1968)
• Parties: Patricia ARBER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John H. STAHLIN et al., Defendants-Appellees. Allan B. CLINK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John H. STAHLIN et al., Defendants-Appellees. Gerald A. PLAS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John H. STAHLIN et al., Defendants-Appellees. Palmer T. HEENAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John H. STAHLIN et al., Defendants-Appellees. Karl LADY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John H. STAHLIN et al., Defendants-Appellees. George M. ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John H. STAHLIN et al., Defendants-Appellees
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 154

159 N.W.2d 154

10 Mich.App. 181

Patricia ARBER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John H. STAHLIN et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Allan B. CLINK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John H. STAHLIN et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Gerald A. PLAS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John H. STAHLIN et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Palmer T. HEENAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John H. STAHLIN et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Karl LADY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John H. STAHLIN et al., Defendants-Appellees.

George M. ZIMMERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. John H. STAHLIN et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Docket Nos. 3397--3402.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

March 25, 1968.

Rehearing Denied May 3, 1968.

Released for Publication June 18, 1968.

Larry S. Davidow, Davidow & Davidow, Detroit, for appellant.

Warner, Norcross & Judd, Grand Rapids, for Stahlin.

Charles A. Ferry, in pro. per.

Daniel Hodgman, Detroit, for Stockmeyer.

Butzel, Eaman, Long, Gust & Kennedy, Detroit, for Evening News Association.

Dykema, Wheat, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, Detroit, for Bagwell.

Before LESINSKI, C.J., and GILLIS and T. G. KAVANAGH, JJ.

T. G. KAVANAGH, Judge.

This matter involves six libel actions which arose out of a political conflict between supporters of Richard Durant (plaintiffs herein) and leaders of the Republican party in Michigan, who allegedly were attempting to oust Durant from a position of influence within the party. The alleged libel was contained in a letter, with an attached enclosure, which defendant Stahlin sent to the Michigan fair compaign practices commission, charging plaintiffs with improper political activities. In their complaints plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in the preparation and publication of the allegedly libelous document, that the charges contained in the document were false, and that defendants knew that they were false and maliciously caused it to be published for the purpose of damaging the reputation of plaintiffs. Each defendant filed an answer to the complaint and a motion for summary judgment with an affidavit in support of the motion, pursuant to GCR 1963, 117. Each motion asserted that the proponent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. GCR 1963, 117.2(3). After hearing argument by counsel on the motions, the circuit, court granted the motions of each defendant, and filed his written opinion. Plaintiffs have appealed.

We deal first with the granting of the motion for summary judgment as to defendants Martin S. Hayden, editor of the Detroit News, and Evening, News Association. In addition to sending a copy of the enclosure to each of the members of the fair campaigns practices commission defendant Stahlin delivered a copy to the above two defendants who allegedly caused to be published in the Detroit News a news story relating some of the contents of the enclosure. The news story, a copy of which has been made part of the record on appeal, makes no reference to any of the plaintiffs. It does, however, refer to some political organizations, e.g. the John Birch Society and Young Americans for Freedom, Inter alia, to which plaintiffs claim to belong. Plaintiffs contend that the charges made against these organizations were generally understood to have been made against the members thereof, including plaintiffs, thus giving plaintiffs a right to recover. This contention was considered and rejected by this Court in Chapman v. Romney (1967), 6 Mich.App. 36, 148 N.W.2d 230. Accordingly, we hold that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of defendants Hayden and Evening News.

As to all the defendants the circuit court determined that there was a qualified privilege under the holdings in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, and Associated Press v. Walker (1967), 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094, and that plaintiffs could not recover in the absence of actual malice, defined as knowledge of the falsity of the statements made, or reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. The correctness of this determination depends upon whether plaintiffs are 'public figures' under the decision in the Walker case. Mr. Chief Justice Warren, writing in Walker, said:

'To me, differentiation between 'public figures' and 'public officials' and adoption of separate standards of proof for each have no basis in law, logic, or First Amendment policy. Increasingly in this country, the distinctions between governmental and private sectors are blurred. * * * This blending of positions and power has also occurred in the case of individuals so that many who do not hold public office at the moment are nevertheless intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.

'Viewed in this context, then, it is plain that although they are not subject to the restraints of the political process, 'public figures,' like 'public officials,' often play an influential role in ordering society. And surely as a class these 'public figures' have as ready access as 'public officials' to mass media of communication, both to influence policy and to counter criticism of their views and activities. Our citizenry has a legitimate and substantial interest in the conduct of such persons, and freedom of the press...