Boose v. Hanlin, 38398

• Decision Date: 22 September 1959
• Docket Number: No. 38398,38398
• Citation: 346 P.2d 932
• Parties: 38 Lab.Cas. P 65,792, 1959 OK 166 Oma Faye BOOSE, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. H. Jim HANLIN, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 932

346 P.2d 932

38 Lab.Cas. P 65,792, 1959 OK 166

Oma Faye BOOSE, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. H. Jim HANLIN, Defendant in Error.

No. 38398.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Sept. 22, 1959.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1959.

Application for Leave to File Second Petition for Rehearing

Denied Dec. 8, 1959.

Syllabus by the Court.

In an action based upon false, malicious and slanderous statements made by defendant to plaintiff's employer where the allegations set forth in the petition are sufficient to state a cause of action in tort as well as slander, Tit. 12 O.S.1951 § 95, par. 3, is controlling as to limitation of said action.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; W. Lee Johnson, Judge.

Action for damages on account of detriment plaintiff allegedly suffered as the result of certain alleged defamatory statements defendant made about her to her employer. From a judgment sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's petition, as amended, and dismissing the action on the ground it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations, plaintiff appealed. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Milton W. Hardy, of Hardy & Hardy, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

A. E. Montgomery, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

BLACKBIRD, Justice.

The parties to this appeal on original record appear in the same order that they did in the trial court and will be referred to by their trial court designations.

By the judgment appealed from, defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's petition, as amended, was sustained, and the action was dismissed upon plaintiff's election to stand on her pleadings. The question involved, as well as the court's ruling thereon and reason therefor, is indicated by specific recitals in the journal entry of said judgment, as follows:

'Counsel for plaintiff contended that plaintiff's petition, as amended, constituted an action for tortiously interfering with plaintiff's right to dispose of her labor, by reason of which the two year statute of limitations, applicable to torts, applied, and that the one year statute of limitations, applicable to actions for slander, as provided by paragraph 4, Section 95, 12 Okla.Stat.Ann. did not apply to plaintiff's petition as amended, as contended for by defendant, and the court being fully advised in the premises, and upon consideration thereof:

* * *

* * *

'* * * it is ordered, by the court that the demurrer of defendant to said plaintiff's petition as amended should be sustained for the reason that plaintiff's action is for slander, and the said 1 year statute of limitations applies thereto, and plaintiff's action is barred thereby, * * *'.

The allegations of plaintiff's petition, together with material amendments thereto, are as follows:

'1. Oma Faye Boose, plaintiff for action against the defendant, J. H. (Jim) Hanlin, alleges and states:

'2. On or about June 15, 1955, in the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Jim Hanlin, defendant, in a certain discourse and conversation with one Simmons, personnel manager of all retails stores of S. G. Holmes & Sons, maliciously spoke, uttered and published of and concerning Oma Faye Boose, plaintiff, an employee of S. G. Holmes & Sons, certain slanderous, false, malicious, scandalous and defamatory words, in words in substance as follows: 'Her absence for sickness is false, she is not as sick as she says she is, she is acting, she just isn't that sick, she is faking and malingering,' said words so maliciously and slanderously spoken of and concerning Oma Faye Boose by J. H. (Jim) Hanlin tended to blacken the honesty, virtue, integrity, morality and reputation of plaintiff, to expose her to public contempt and to lower the public opinion of her, and to injure and damage her in her business and reputation, as a saleslady and as a woman.

'3. The words so spoken by defendant were and are utterly false, malicious and slanderous.

'4. By reason of defendant's wrong in speaking and publishing the false, malicious and slanderous words and statements, and as the direct and proximate result thereof, the said Simmons, discharged this plaintiff without notice, and while she was in the hospital from her employment as saleslady where she had been satisfactorily and continuously employed for about eighteen months earning an average of $48.00 per week, and plaintiff was thereafter unable to procure employment in the same or similar business in the same locality, plaintiff was injured in her good name and reputation, was exposed to public contempt and ridicule, and a lowering of opinion of her and her character, suspicion and ridicule, she was unable to secure any kind of permanent employment for a period of fourteen months, and unable at all time subsequently to procure or secure any employment in the same or similar business in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, to her damage and injury in the amount of $10,000.00, both actual and punitive.

'Wherefore premises considered, plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant in the amount of $10,000.00 and all further general relief and the costs of this action.

* * *

* * *

'Plaintiff did not learn of such slanderous utterances and words of the defendant, and which remarks and words were secreted and withheld from her by the defendant, or any one else, until on or about February, 1957.

* * *

*...