Arnold v. National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards Ass'n, 31325.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Writing for the Court: SCHWELLENBACH
• Citation: 36 Wn.2d 557,219 P.2d 121
• Parties: ARNOLD et al. v. NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS & STEWARDS ASS'N et al.
• Docket Number: 31325.
• Decision Date: 09 June 1950

219 P.2d 121

36 Wn.2d 557

ARNOLD et al.
v.
NATIONAL UNION OF MARINE COOKS & STEWARDS ASS'N et al.

No. 31325.

Supreme Court of Washington, en Banc.

June 9, 1950

Rehearing Denied July 19, 1950. [36 Wn.2d 558]

Bassett & Geisness, Seattle, for appellants.

Caughlan & Hatten, Seattle, Gladstein, Andersen, Resner & Sawyer, by Allan Brotsky, San Francisco, Cal. (outside attorneys allowed by court order to appear here), for respondents.

SCHWELLENBACH, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a civil action for libel, after an order had been entered sustaining a demurrer to the amended complaint, and plaintiffs had elected to stand upon their pleadings and refused to plead further.

The amended complaint contained 97 causes of action (one for each plaintiff), each one separate and distinct from the others, but each one (except the name of the plaintiff) having the same allegations. Briefly, the allegations are as follows:

1. That the defendant union is a voluntary organization, having an office and place of business in Seattle; that defendant Harris is its general agent in Seattle.

2. That the usual occupation of each plaintiff is work in the stewards' department of ships engaged in the Alaska trade or related or similar work.

3. That on or about April 11, 1949, defendant Harris, acting for and on behalf of the defendant union and within the scope of his authority as agent therefor, composed and published of and concerning each of the plaintiffs, defamatory and damaging [219 P.2d 122] written statements that each and all of the plaintiffs deserted the defendant association during the 1948 maritime strike and attempted to organize a dual organization for the purpose, in part, of breaking said strike; and which characterized plaintiffs as renegades and, in substance and effect, proposed and encouraged other unions, with influence and control over hiring of employees for work of plaintiffs' usual occupation, to boycott the plaintiffs and prevent them from obtaining employment; that said publications tended to expose plaintiffs to hatred, contempt, [36 Wn.2d 559] ridicule and obloquy; to deprive them of social intercourse; and to injure them in their occupation.

Attached to the complaint and made a part thereof was one of the letters:

 'National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards
                 'National Office: 86 Commercial St., San Francisco 11
                 'Phone SUtter 1-8657
                 April 11, 1949
                'Seattle Branch
                '110 Cherry Street
                'Seattle 4, Washington
                'Phone ELliott 2562
                'Oscar Anderson, Secretary
                'Alaska Fishermen's Union
                '84 Union Street
                'Seattle 1, Washington
                

'Dear Sir and Brother:

'Enclosed is a list of former member of the National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, who deserted this union during the 1948 maritime strike and attempted to organize a dual organization under the leadership of the Sailors Union of the Pacific for the purpose of breaking our strike and destroying our union.

'While these renegades have been completely discredited and defeated, they may attempt to obtain employment in other sections of the industry, particularly when the fishing season opens

'This informatian is only for your guidance and formulation to your membership as to the constructive ways and means of carrying on a progressive labor organization.'

'Fraternally,

'Joseph Harris, Agent'

4. Attached to each of said letters was a list of names containing the name of each plaintiff.

5. As a result of said publication each plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $20,000.

Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.) § 2424, provides:

'Every malicious publication by writing, printing, * * * which shall tend:----

'(1) To expose any living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; or

* * *

* * * [36 Wn.2d 560]

'(3) To injure any person, corporation or association of persons in his or their business or occupation, shall be libel. * * *'

As special damages are not alleged, the sole question for determination here is whether or not the publication is libelous per se.

Malice is not an essential element of civil libel. Ziebell v. Lumbermens...