Braman v. Walthall
Decision Date | 30 May 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 4-8813,4-8813 |
Parties | BRAMAN et al. v. WALTHALL et al. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Frank J. Wills, Little Rock, for appellants.
Frances D. Holtzendorff, Ben D. Rowland, and Rose, Dobyns, Meek & House, Little Rock, for appellees.
Appellees, Myrna Walthall and Addie Allen, filed separate slander suits against appellants, Gus Blass Company and Don Braman. The original complaints also contained a second cause of action against appellants for restraint of liberty but the trial court sustained appellants' motion to require appellees to elect, and the second counts were stricken as being improperly joined under Section 1283 of Pope's Digest. The original complaints also made three other employees of Gus Blass Co. party defendants, but appellees dismissed the suits as to two of these and took a nonsuit as to the other.
The Gus Blass Co. operates a department store in the City of Little Rock with appellant, Don Braman as its store superintendent. Appellee Walthall entered the employ of the company as cashier in the piece goods department in April, 1945 and appellee Allen was employed as saleslady in the same department in April, 1946.
In their complaints appellees alleged that appellant Braman falsely and maliciously called them 'liars,' 'thieves,' 'cheats' and 'lying thieves' in the presence of each other and in the presence of other employees of the company; that said false and slanderous statements were made with the malicious intent to, and did, expose appellees to public hatred, contempt and ridicule; that said statements were spoken by Braman in an insulting, boisterous and contemptuous manner and by use of vile, obscene and profane language; that by reason thereof appellees suffered physical illness, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and damage to their reputations for which they wer entitled to recover both actual and punitive damages.
In their answers appellants objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the Workmen's Compensation Commission had sole jurisdiction. The answers, as amended, also contained a general denial and alleged the truth of the alleged slanderous statements, if made; that appellees conspired with each other to steal merchandise from the company; and that said slanderous statements, if made, were privileged.
The actions were consolidated for trial and resulted in verdicts and judgments for each of the appellees in the sum of $2,000 compensatory damages and $500 punitive damages.
Appellants first contend that the cases should have been transferred to the Workmen's Compensation Commission because the matters complained of arose out of and in the course of appellees' employment by the Blass company. Appellants cite no authority to sustain this novel contention and we find it to be without merit. There is nothing in the Workmen's Compensation Law, Initiated Act 4 of 1948, Acts 1949, p. 1420, indicating a repeal of our statutes on libel and slander. Ark.Stats.1947, Secs. 41-2401 to 2412. The act provides for compensation to employees for disability or death from accidental injury arising out of and in the course of employment or from occupational disease arising therefrom. We find nothing in the language of the act which could be construed as including slander or damage to character as furnishing a basis for compensation to employees.
It is also insisted that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdicts. According to the testimony of Mrs. Walthall she was called to Braman's office about 4:30 P.M., September 25, 1947 and told that she was $25.87 short in her cash receipts for September 23, the store being closed on September 24. She gave the following testimony as abstracted in appellees' brief: 'The first thing he asked me was if I had a husband and I told him no. Then he started in. He kept me in the store until six o'clock--thirty minutes after closing time. He told me to be back at 9:00 in the morning. I asked him if he was accusing me of taking anything, and he just told me to come back in the morning to get my money. I couldn't get it then--it was all closed. I got in the store at quarter to nine Friday, September 26, and in about ten minutes from then I was in his office back there and he began on me. He had these tickets on his desk and I did not have anything to do with tickets. All I did was stamp tickets. I did not have a sales book. He said I said, 'No.' He said 'Myrna, don't lie to me.' I said, 'I am telling you the truth', and he called me everything in the world he could. He shook his finger at me and hit me so many times on the end of my nose until there is a mark there. He said I had taken material and I had stolen money from the store to the extent of $5,000. I kept telling him no. I was crying. I tried to leave. He grabbed me by the arm and pushed me down and said I wasn't leaving. I wanted a drink. I was sick at my stomach. He ordered me not to leave the room--I was to sit there until he finished with me. My arm was black and blue. He would get right up and say, 'You little lying thief, you are going to tell me or you are going to pay the price.' I kept telling him I didn't do it, I didn't know who did. He called Miss Cox and told her to start writing. He would stand over me and dictate to Miss Cox. I don't know what all was written. I wasn't permitted to read it. He said I would have to pay the $5,000. He said if I didn't sign the statement he would put me behind bars. He would ask me how I would look behind bars to my little girl to stare at. He picked up the phone to call the bonding company and I started crying harder. * * * He told me if I didn't sign he would follow me and I would be unable to get employment.
Mrs. Walthall testified that under these circumstances she signed the typewritten statement without being given an opportunity to read it; that Braman refused to permit her to consult an attorney or call her mother over the telephone; that he called her a thief and lying thief in the presence of three other employees; that after she signed the typewritten statement, Braman directed two other employees to take witness to her home and search for materials; that said employees took from her home two skirts, a blouse and a few pieces of material, part of which had been purchased by her brother and presented to her as a Christmas present, and the balance of which she herself had purchased; that Braman sent down to her desk and got a box containing a sweater and dress, which she had just paid out of lay-away for her daughter, some old shoes and glasses belonging to witness, and some material that had been ordered held for customers until called for; that Braman accused her of intending to walk out of the store with the box; that when she returned with the employees to the store, appellee Allen was in Braman's office and he called both of them lying thieves; that after dismissing Mrs. Allen, he told witness to write a statement in long hand, the contents of which he dictated and that she was forced to sign this statement after Braman used the same tactics that had been previously employed in obtaining the typewritten statement.
Mrs. Walthall further testified that after she signed the statement, Braman said it was no good and that he wanted something better. She was given some paper and told to take it home with her and write out a confession and bring it back the next morning. The following morning witness returned to the store with her brother and challenged Braman to make the same statements in the brother's presence that he had made the day before. When she asked for her check and the things that had been taken from her, Braman ordered her out of his office.
We do not set out the testimony of Mrs. Allen which tended to show the same method of treatment as employed in the case of Mrs. Walthall. Certain material was also taken from Mrs. Allen's home and she testified that she wrote out a statement under circumstances similar to those testified to by Mrs. Walthall. Mrs. Allen's 16 year old daughter who was employed on week-ends identified part of the material taken from her mother's home as having been purchased by her for herself and mother. Both appellees denied that they had ever stolen anything from the store.
A doctor who examined appellees on September 29, 1947 testified that he found them in a nervous, weak and upset condition and that he found two bruises on the right arm of Mrs. Walthall.
Appellees testified of several instances after being discharged by appellants in which they failed to obtain employment after Blass was given as a reference, and of losing jobs obtained without such reference after the employer learned of their former employment by Blass.
The testimony on behalf of appellants contradicted that on behalf of appellees on all the material issues. If...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adams v. National Bank of Detroit
......Polaroid Corp. (Foley I ), 381 Mass. 545, 551-552, 413 N.E.2d 711 (1980); 8 Braman v. Walthall, 215 Ark. 582, . Page 466 . 225 S.W.2d 342 (1949); Howland v. Balma, 143 Cal.App.3d 899, 192 Cal.Rptr. 286 (1983); Mounteer v. Utah ......
-
United Ins. Co. of America v. Murphy, 97-234
...sufficient to support an award of special damages. Dun & Bradstreet v. Robinson, 233 Ark. 168, 345 S.W.2d 34 (1961); Braman v. Walthall, 215 Ark. 582, 225 S.W.2d 342 (1949); see also Howard W. Brill,Arkansas Law of Damages, § 33-9, at p. 577 (3d ed.1996). Where the statements were not actio......
-
Nassa v. Hook-SupeRx, Inc.
...of "Brooks Drug." The plaintiff's third amended complaint named both Hook and Brooks throughout as defendants. 3. See Braman v. Wathall, 215 Ark. 582, 225 S.W.2d 342 (1949); Perry v. Stitzer Buick GMC, Inc., 637 N.E.2d 1282 (Ind.1994); Kiner v. Reliance Insurance Co., 463 N.W.2d 9 (Iowa 199......
-
Foley v. Polaroid Corp.
...Action against Employer for Fraud, False Imprisonment, Defamation or the Like," 46 A.L.R.3d 1279 (1972). See also Braman v. Walthall, 215 Ark. 582, 225 S.W.2d 342 (1949) (employee's action for defamation); Moore v. Federal Dep't Stores, 33 Mich.App. 556, 558, 190 N.W.2d 262 (1971) (employee......