Bayoud v. Sigler
| Decision Date | 29 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 7994,7994 |
| Citation | 555 S.W.2d 913 |
| Parties | Paige B. BAYOUD, Appellant, v. Howard Y. SIGLER, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Lewis R. Sifford, L. W. Anderson, Ralph E. Hartman, Dallas, for appellant.
Ronald R. Waldie, Dallas, for appellee.
This is a suit brought by Dr. Howard Sigler against Dr. Paige Bayoud for damages because of slander. Trial was by jury and judgment rendered for plaintiff on the verdict.
The jury findings, in essence, are: On two occasions defendant made the statement that plaintiff was an incompetent physician. That defendant also made these statements that plaintiff was a liar, that plaintiff came to the hospital in a state of intoxication, that plaintiff was of low moral character. That such statements were not substantially true, were slanderous and were motivated by malice. That plaintiff's actual damages were in the amount of $75,000, and exemplary damages, $150,000.
Plaintiff remitted $100,000 of the exemplary damages which were in excess of his pleadings, and judgment was rendered in the amount of $125,000.
Defendant has twenty-three points of error attacking each of the jury findings that there is no evidence and insufficient evidence, and that such findings are contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. We pass upon the no evidence points by considering only the favorable evidence and we consider the entire record in passing upon the remaining points.
There are 654 pages in this statement of facts containing the testimony of 22 witnesses. As it occurs too frequently in sharply contested cases, the two versions of the episodes described by the witnesses are alarmingly dissimilar. Passing upon the credibility of the witnesses in order to determine the true facts must have been an exceedingly difficult task for the jury in this case. The animosity between the two medical doctors who were parties to this litigation is clearly shown throughout this record.
The testimony in the record supports plaintiff's version as to the incidents which transpired. Plaintiff is a medical doctor specializing in orthopedic surgery and was associated with the Medical Center Hospital of Garland from 1959 until January, 1973. Defendant was chief of staff and co-owner of that hospital at all times material to this cause of action. Plaintiff treated defendant for five different injuries or illnesses. According to plaintiff, his troubles with defendant began when he refused to falsify a claim and perjure himself regarding an injury for which he treated defendant. They engaged in a confrontation in a hall in the hospital during the course of which defendant made one of the statements about plaintiff's incompetence and about plaintiff being a liar. Such statements were made in the presence of one of plaintiff's patients, her mother, and a friend. The second incident occurred during a dinner preceding a staff meeting in the hospital. In the presence of the several attending doctors, defendant made the second statement about plaintiff's incompetence and also reflecting upon plaintiff's honesty and integrity.
Defendant's version, which was supported by witnesses called by him, was entirely different and would have supported jury findings to the contrary. However, there is evidence to support the findings as outlined above, and such findings are not clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. All of the evidentiary points of error are overruled.
Defendant has points of error that both the actual and exemplary damage findings are excessive and that plaintiff's evidence shows no financial damage. The actual damage issue informed the jury it could consider mental anguish, humiliation and embarrassment together with damage to reputation and character as the elements of damages. The definition of "exemplary damages" in the charge was as follows:
" 'EXEMPLARY DAMAGES' means an amount which may, in your discretion, award as an example to others and as a penalty or by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Rogers
...Bank of Corpus Christi v. Ake, 606 S.W.2d 696 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Bayoud v. Sigler, 555 S.W.2d 913 (Tex.Civ.App.--Beaumont 1977, writ dism'd w.o.j.). This presumption of actual damages in a libel per se case is conclusive as a matter of law. Galveston Tri......
-
Kirk v. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO
...n.r.e.). Where the language is actionable per se, damages are conclusively presumed and need not be proved. Bayoud v. Sigler, 555 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tex.Civ.App.1977, writ dism'd) (emphasis To request summary judgment from the Court is to disregard the many fact questions raised by the langua......
-
Hancock v. Variyam
...First State Bank of Corpus Christi v. Ake, 606 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citing Bayoud v. Sigler, 555 S.W.2d 913 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1977, writ dis'md)). Thus, because of their uncertain nature, their measurement is generally left to the discretio......
-
Ehrhardt v. Electrical & Instrumentation
...statements, or slander. Padilla v. Carrier Air Conditioning, 67 F.Supp.2d 650, 663-64 (E.D.Tex.1999); Bayoud v. Sigler, 555 S.W.2d 913 (Tex.Civ. App. — Beaumont 1977, writ dism'd). There are those statements which are per se actionable without any allegations of special damages; and those s......
-
Defamation in the Workplace
...App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied); Moore v. Waldrop , 166 S.W.3d 380, 384 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.); Bayoud v. Sigler, 555 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1977, writ dism’d). A defamation action requires proof of two additional elements: (i) the statement must be false, ......
-
Defamation in the Workplace
...App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied); Moore v. Waldrop , 166 S.W.3d 380, 384 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.); Bayoud v. Sigler, 555 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1977, writ dism’d). A defamation action requires proof of two additional elements: (i) the statement must be false, ......
-
Defamation in the workplace
...App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied); Moore v. Waldrop , 166 S.W.3d 380, 384 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.); Bayoud v. Sigler, 555 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1977, writ dism’d). DEFAMATION IN THE WORKPLACE DEFAMATION IN THE WORKPLACE §29:2 Texas Employment Law 29-4 A defama......
-
Defamation in the Workplace
...App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied); Moore v. Waldrop , 166 S.W.3d 380, 384 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, no pet.); Bayoud v. Sigler, 555 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. Civ. App.—Beaumont 1977, writ dism’d). A defamation action requires proof of two additional elements: (i) the statement must be false, ......