Arber v. Stahlin
| Decision Date | 03 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | A,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 170 N.W.2d 45,382 Mich. 300 |
| 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. pril Term. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Butzel, Eaman, Long, Gust & Kennedy, Detroit, for defendants-appellees The Evening News Assn. and Martin S. Hayden, Rockwell T. Gust, George E. Brand, Jr., Detroit, of counsel.
Warner, Norcross & Judd, by Lewis A. Engman and Jerome M. Smith, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellee Stahlin.
Before the Entire Bench, except T. G. KAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ.
This appeal is from orders of the circuit court granting motions for summary judgments as to defendants, The Evening News Association, Martin S. Hayden, Paul D. Bagwell, and John H. Stahlin. The motions arose in six cases which were consolidated by order of the Court of Appeals. The summary judgments were affirmed by that Court.
The original complaints in the six cases before us were filed in May, 1963. They arose out of a conflict between the plaintiffs, who were supporters of one Richard Durant, and certain 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 dated May 10, 1962, with an enclosure, mailed by then State Senator John H. Stahlin to the Michigan fair campaign practices commission, charging plaintiffs with improper activities.
Plaintiffs charge that the above circulated documents were libelous in that the statements made, and the natural inferences to be drawn therefrom, charged the plaintiffs with being members of and/or associated with groups and/or persons whose activities were detailed as consisting of bribery, diversion of party funds, intimidation, misrepresentation, threats of physical violence, anti-Semitism, anti-Negro sentiments, violation of the American tradition of honesty, decency and fair play, and Fascist, immoral and reprehensible conduct.
Defendants filed their several motions for summary judgments.
The motions of defendants The Evening News Association and Martin S. Hayden were based upon: (1) Claimed privilege in the matter of 'transmission of Senator Stahlin's letter and enclosure of May 10, 1962, to the chairman of the fair campaign practices committee with copies to the members of said committee and to the press.' (2) The publication by The Evening News Association of May 13, 1962, was privileged as a matter of law under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and under Michigan Const. 1963, art. 1, §§ 3 [382 Mich. 304] and 5, 1 as being a matter of broad and general public interest. (3) The article did not name the plaintiffs and did not concern or libel plaintiffs as a matter of law. (4) There was no genuine issue as to any material fact and the undisputed facts show that defendants The Evening News Association and Martin S. Hayden did not act with actual malice toward plaintiffs. Attached to the motions were the affidavits of Frederick G. Engle, political writer for The Detroit News, and Martin S. Hayden, editor of The Detroit News. These affidavits, together with other affidavits hereafter mentioned, are contained in the appendix to this opinion.
The motions for summary judgments, with supporting affidavits, filed by defendants John H. Stahlin and Paul D. Bagwell relied upon GCR1963, 117.2(3), alleging that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact in the action because the publication of the statements complained In answer to the several motions for summary judgments, plaintiffs filed the affidavit of defendant Charles Ferry.
of was privileged and such statements were not libelous of the plaintiffs.
The motions for summary judgments were granted and orders were entered in the various cases on behalf of each of the defendants.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgments 'for the reason that plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine issue of fact as to the element of malice.' 10 Mich.App. 181, 188, 159 N.W.2d 154, 158.
Plaintiffs are here on leave granted. 381 Mich. 767.
This Court is requested--principally upon the authority of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686--to draw the fine line between speech unconditionally guaranteed and speech which may legitimately be regulated (see Speiser v. Randall (1958), 357 U.S. 513, 525, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460). This we cannot do.
The sole issue before this Court is whether summary judgments were properly or improperly granted. We hold that summary judgments were improperly granted.
While we agree with the lower courts that the New York Times standard relating to 'public officials' 2 and its subsequent extension to 'public persons' 3 is controlling if plaintiffs are in fact 'public persons,' 4 we cannot agree with the conclusion that there is no question of fact as to "actual malice'--that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' See New York Times, supra, 376 U.S. p. 280, 84 S.Ct. p. 726.
Let us examine the facts presently before us. The affidavits of defendants On the other hand, we have the affidavit of defendant Charles Ferry, filed by plaintiffs, alleging that, as campaign manager for Stahlin, he was in close and constant communication with defendant Stahlin; that he knew Stahlin had been promised political support by certain party leaders if Stahlin would publicly attack Durant; and that The Detroit News, through Martin S. Hayden, would editorially support Stahlin in his campaign for lieutenant governor if he would publicly attack Durant.
Engle and Hayden state that their sole participation in the alleged libel was the publication of defendant Stahlin's request and complaint to the fair campaign practices commission and Mr. Durant's comments thereon. The affidavits of all defendants aver that the publication was without actual malice, but all tacitly admit knowledge of the content of Exhibit 'A'.
Deponent Ferry further stated that--with this quid pro quo arrangement in mind to obtain the support of The Detroit News and the other defendants--he and Stahlin began gathering potentially damaging information and arranged to give defendant Engle of the News the 'beat' on the story because it was the only paper which was really after the 'Durant thing.'
Ferry's affidavit gives in detail the time and the information received in the subsequent meetings. Deponent tells of the enthusiastic support of defendant Bagwell in planning and executing the attack on Durant and the discussions with The Detroit News' representatives, including Engle, Robert Poppa, Carl Rudow and Will Muller.
The end product of these meetings and political fact-gathering efforts with defendants and others was Exhibit 'A'. The exhibit was presented to The Detroit News through Mr. Engle and Mr. Hayden on May 11, 1962, prior to publication. According to deponent Ferry, Mr. Hayden released him at that time from giving the News the 'beat,' because he wanted it to have the greatest circulation possible. The exhibit was then mimeographed and distributed to other news media and was published in The Detroit News on Sunday, May 13, 1962, prior to the mailing of Exhibit 'A' to the fair campaign practices commission.
The record indicates that defendants had complete control over releasing the news and that they could have released it at any time. We observe, however, that it was not 'hot news' requiring immediate dissemination as in Associated Press v. Walker (1967), 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094, but rather the type of news which by its very nature requires close scrutiny and careful verification (see Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967), 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094.
Viewing all of the conflicting representations in the affidavits, could not a jury find or reasonably infer that defendants intended solely to 'get Durant' and that they were not in the least concerned with plaintiffs, who were virtual anonymities in the political area, or with the true facts regarding their participation in the Durant Campaign? Could not a jury also find or reasonably infer that the hurried publication of the allegedly libelous document was indicative of a reckless disregard of whether it was true or not?
From these and other facts disclosed by the record, we find that reasonable minds could find or reasonably infer that the document was prepared and published with an intent to cause harm through falsehood or in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the allegations. See Rose v. Koch (1967), 278 Minn. 235, 154 N.W.2d 409. This creates a typical jury question. 5 Where actual malice, in the sense that an alleged defamer knew the statement to be false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth of falsity, is alleged in any of the pleadings, the crucial and often determinative factor is credibility. As we have repeatedly emphasized, summary judgment is not available whenever a presented issue of material fact turns upon the credibility of an affiant or witness whose deposition has been taken. Durant v. Stahlin (1965), 375 Mich. 628, 135 N.W.2d 392, and cases cited therein.
It is simply not legally sufficient to say that since plaintiffs did not prove by their affidavits a publication with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of truth or falsity, the fact of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. Austin
...conduct.1 When "the credibility of a witness or deponent is crucial, summary judgment should not be granted." Arber v. Stahlin , 382 Mich. 300, 309, 170 N.W.2d 45 (1969) ;2 accord Brown v. Pointer , 390 Mich. 346, 354, 212 N.W.2d 201 (1973). Because the defendant-driver's credibility was cr......
-
Bichler v. Union Bank & Trust Co. of Grand Rapids
...See Lins v. Evening News Ass'n, 129 Mich.App. at 437, 342 N.W.2d 573. The contrast between the present case and Arber v. Stahlin, 382 Mich. 300, 170 N.W.2d 45 (1969), cited by Bichler, where the Supreme Court of Michigan reversed summary judgment for media defendants, is striking. There, ve......
-
Belli v. Curtis Pub. Co.
...(7th Cir. 1965) 354 F.2d 558, 560--561 (cert. den. (1966) 384 U.S. 909, 86 S.Ct. 1339, 16 L.Ed.2d 361); Arber v. Stahlin (1969) 382 Mich. 300, 307--309, 170 N.W.2d 45, 48--49, cert. den. Evening News Ass'n v. Arber (1970) 397 U.S. 924, 90 S.Ct. 927, 25 L.Ed.2d 103; Belli v. Orlando Daily Ne......
-
Rouch v. Enquirer & News of Battle Creek
...of fault, rather than, as alleged here, a defense of privilege in the face of an alleged defamatory publication.9 In Arber v. Stahlin, 382 Mich. 300, 170 N.W.2d 45 (1969), we held that the existence of "actual malice," defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth, is a......