Burdett v. Hines

• Decision Date: 21 March 1921
• Docket Number: 21549
• Citation: 125 Miss. 66,87 So. 470
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BURDETT v. HINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS, et al

87 So. 470

125 Miss. 66

BURDETT v. HINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF RAILROADS, et al

No. 21549

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 21, 1921

March 1921

LIBEL AND SLANDER. Request by ex-employee held to release employer from liability on account of information furnished.

In a libel suit by an ex-employee of a railroad company against such company based upon a statement to a prospective employer in response to a letter written by plaintiff to defendant to forward to a prospective employer information about plaintiff's personal character, habits, and ability and as to the cause of his leaving their employment, such information furnished in response to such letter cannot form the basis of a libel suit, where it expressly released defendant from liability for damages on account of furnishing such information.

HON. E L. BRIEN, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Warren county, HON. E. L. BRIEN, Judge.

Action by George Burdett against Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, and another for libel. Judgment for defendants on a directed verdict, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, Voller & Kelly and Chaney & Ramsey, for appellant.

Appellant is now placed in such position that he can never again work for a railroad company anywhere in the United States, by reason of the false and libelous reports made by the officers of the railroad company to another railroad. He is black-listed, as the railroad men call it, and there is no way for him to work for another railroad again. When he files his application with another railroad it is necessary, as he alleges, for him to give the name of his former employer, the Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Railroad Company.

If this railroad company continues to follow him in the future as it has done in the past, it will be absolutely necessary for him to quit the trade he has spent so many years in learning, and take up some other trade or profession. If the defendant in the court below, wilfully and maliciously made statements of him for the purpose of keeping him from obtaining employment, and has kept him from obtaining employment at his regular trade, has he not suffered injury? If he has suffered such injury would the railroad be liable but for federal control? If the railroad would be liable under the management and control of its owners, under the same circumstances, the act of Congress in question makes them liable during federal control, leaving his right of recovery unimpaired.

We are not going to argue this case further. It is so clear to us that no defense can be made that couldn't be made but for federal control. We are not going to burden the court with an extended argument. We submit to this honorable court that this appellant has a just and righteous cause of action against the Yazoo and Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, and the director general, and we confidently expect a reversal of the lower court.

Hirsch, Dent & Landau, for appellee.

The declaration alleges, that said Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company reported to the said Mobile & Ohio Railroad that the plaintiff deserted a crew at its yards in Vicksburg, which the officers knew to be untrue, and that the said railroad company by its agents and employees made the same or similar report to the Southern Railway in Atlanta, Georgia; that he is now unable to obtain employment, and has been damaged in the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars actual and punitive. The only damages averred is his alleged inability to obtain employment as a switchman with any railroad in the United States. He admits that the only publication made was to the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company at Meridian, and the Southern Railway in Atlanta, and he studiously avoids any denial of the salient facts that these reports were made, as shown by the pleas, at his solicitation, and were copied from the records.

The appellant distinctly, unequivocally and solemnly agreed, in writing, that no damage suit should be instituted for any information furnished, and there is no principle of right, justice, or reason which would permit him to prosecute this action, either against the railroad company or the director general. He voluntarily solicited these statements; he gave a pledge that no damage would result; and he cannot be permitted now to institute suit when he contracted that no action for damages would be brought, independently of any question of privilege or qualified privilege.

Privileged Communications. Responses to Inquiries Made by the Plaintiff or Authorized Agent. "If plaintiff consented to or authorized the publication complained of, he cannot recover for any injury sustained by reason of the publication; and the same rule applies to a publication solicited or induced by inquiry on the part of plaintiff or his agent, at least if it was procured by the fraudulent contrivance of plaintiff, himself, with a view to an action." 25 Encyclopedia of Law and Procedure, pp. 370 371; Ibed, 392, 393; Kansas City, M. & M. R. R. Co. v. Delaney, 52 S.W. 151, Supreme Court of Tennessee, April 15, 1899; Alabama...