Bienvenu v. Angelle, 7371

• Decision Date: 27 May 1968
• Docket Number: No. 7371,7371
• Citation: 211 So.2d 395
• Parties: Joseph Andrew BIENVENU et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Robert ANGELLE, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 395

211 So.2d 395 Joseph Andrew BIENVENU et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Robert ANGELLE, Defendant-Appellee. No. 7371. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. May 27, 1968.
Rehearing Denied July 1, 1968.

Bob F. Wright, of Domengeaux & Wright, Lafayette, for appellants.

J. Minos Simon, Lafayette, for appellee.

Page 396

Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS and CUTRER, JJ.

CUTRER, Judge.

Joseph A. Bienvenu, Jr. and his wife, Lite B. Bienvenu, brought this action for slander against Robert Angelle. A trial by jury resulted in a mistrial. In the second trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant and from judgment pursuant thereto, plaintiffs appeal. Defendant answered the appeal contending that the appeal is frivolous and that this Court is without Constitutional authority to disturb the jury's conclusions of fact.

The plaintiffs allege that defendant uttered certain slanderous statements to Mrs. Mary Evelyn Parker, Director of Public Welfare for the State of Louisiana, and George T. Hammer, Jr., which statements caused damage to Mrs. Bienvenu. Defendant admits having a conversation with Mrs. Parker and Mr. Hammer pertaining to Mrs. Bienvenu's application for the position of Director of Welfare for St. Martin Parish, but denied any slanderous remarks. In the alternative, defendant pleaded privilege, truth and lack of malice.

The verdict rendered by the jury was general and as such gives this Court no indication as to what conclusions of fact the jury reached. It cannot be determined whether the jury concluded that a slander had not been committed, that if committed, any such remarks were privileged or that they were true. Under these circumstances we are unable to accord the usual weight to the jury verdict but must review the record and make an independent factual determination of the evidence. Louisiana Constitution of 1921, Article VII, Section 29. By following this Constitutional mandate, any error of law by the trial court will be corrected. Broussard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., La.App., 188 So.2d 111.

The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury that plaintiff was a public official and was therefore subject to the rulings set forth in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 1964. The Sullivan case, in applying the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution, effected a modification in the jurisprudence of this state by holding:

'The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice' that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' This rule was implemented by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Walker v. Associated Press, 251 La. 772, 206 So.2d 489.

This court held, In Re Bienvenu, 158 So.2d 213, that Mrs. Bienvenu was appointed to the position of Director of Public Welfare for St. Martin Parish, Louisiana, as of November 26, 1962. This appointment occurred prior to the date of the alleged slander. Plaintiff strenuously urges that a civil service employee is not a 'public official' and therefore is not subject to the rule enunciated in the Sullivan case, supra. We hold that Mrs. Bienvenu was a public official at the time of the alleged slander and the rule of the Sullivan case applies. The character or reputation of a public official is of public interest and statements as to a public official's character or reputation are statements 'related to official conduct.'

We are presented with the question of whether defendant made a defamatory statement and if so did plaintiffs prove that the statements were made with knowledge that it was false or with a reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

The dispute arises from conversations between defendant and Mrs. Mary Evelyn

Page 397

Parker, the Director of Public...