Dauterman v. State-Record Co.

• Decision Date: 30 May 1967
• Docket Number: No. 18660,STATE-RECORD,18660
• Citation: Dauterman v. State-Record Co., 249 S.C. 512, 154 S.E.2d 919 (S.C. 1967)
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Russell Earl DAUTERMAN, Jr., Appellant, v. TheCOMPANY, Respondent.

Page 919

154 S.E.2d 919

249 S.C. 512

Russell Earl DAUTERMAN, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE-RECORD COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 18660.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 30, 1967.

Harvey L. Golden, Columbia, for appellant.

David W. Robinson, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court, which will be reported herewith, granting respondent's motion for a judgment non obstante veredicto in a libel action. We have carefully considered the record, as well as the briefs of counsel, and conclude that there was no error on the part of the circuit court in granting a judgment for respondent.

Under all of the circumstances reflected by the record, we think the circuit judge correctly concluded that the language complained of was not actionable, but, even if the statement as to the appellant 'drinking 'quite a bit' Monday' be considered libelous, the record reflects that such statement was substantially true. Appellant himself testified that he had a bourbon on the rocks for lunch that day, and another when he came in from work that afternoon. The appellant, in a letter explaining the tragic occurrence to the Dean of his department, written shortly after such occurrence, stated that he and a Mr. Edwards 'drank a few beers' within the hour preceding the occurrence.

As to slapping the baby, one year old, appellant's testimony was to the effect that he simply 'gave him one gentle pat on the bottom.' While the views of people, including appellant and his wife, vary as to corporal punishment, and the extent thereof, which should or should not be properly administered to children, no authority has been cited, or come to our attention, for the proposition that a false statement that a parent on one isolated occasion slapped a child is actionable.

The judgment of the lower court is

Affirmed.

The Order of Judge Spruill follows:

The above-entitled case was tried at the November Term of Common Pleas for Richland County and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $5,000.00 actual damages. The plaintiff was represented by Mr. Harvey L. Golden and the defendant was represented by Mr. D. W. Robinson. After verdict the defendant moved for judgment N.O.V. or, in the alternative, for a new trial. This motion was marked 'heard' and was subsequently argued.

On the evening of June 10, 1963, the plaintiff, who was then an instructor at the University of South Carolina, was involved in an argument with his wife, whom he has since divorced, and Mrs. Dauterman shot him with a .22 calibre rifle. Mr. Dauterman was taken to the Columbia Hospital and Mrs. Dauterman was taken to the police station. On the following morning, June 11, 1963, The State newspaper published the following account of the shooting of the plaintiff by his wife:

'Rifle Shot Hits USC Professor--A University of South Carolina professor was shot in the chest in his apartment Monday night.

'City police officers arrested Mrs. Judy Dauterman, 22, of 732 Pickens St., Apt. 15 in connection with the 8:15 p.m. shooting.

'Mrs. Dauterman told police her husband, Dr. Russell Dauterman of the University Department of Philosophy, slapped their baby, Phillip. She said she became furious and they exchanged words.

'She said she later went into the bedroom where she took a .22 rifle out of the closet. The report said she shot her husband, who was standing in the next room. The bullet penetrated the lower right chest.

'The police report quoted Mrs. Dauterman as saying she did not see her husband at the time, but heard a noise in the next room and fired.

'Mrs. Dauterman also told officers she and her husband had been drinking 'quite a bit' Monday. She admitted being 'pretty high' at the time of the shooting.

'Dauterman's attending physician listed his condition as 'good' late Monday night. He was at Columbia Hospital. Officers said late Monday evening that Mrs. Dauterman would be released under $1,000 bond pending the outcome of her husband's condition.

'Investigating officers include Detective D. P. Eleazer, Sgt. H. W. Steinert and Officer J. T. Hamiter.'

This action is one for libel based on the publication of the above news story. The plaintiff's complaint sets out the innuendo involved in the publication and alleges special damages as follows:

'4. On June 11, 1963, The State Newspaper, on page 6--A, Column 4, contained an article which inferred and tended to lead its readers to believe that Plaintiff was a cruel and intemperate person, of questionable morals, not fit to be in the teaching profession.

'5. A copy of said article is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A' and, by reference, made a part of this Complaint.

'6. Said article widely published and intentionally repeated untrue and defamatory statements tending to degrade Plaintiff's reputation, which statements were made by Plaintiff's ex-wife, who was and has been, an emotionally and mentally disturbed person.

'7. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned publication: generally, the Plaintiff's good name and reputation have been degraded and defamed, he has been held up to public ridicule, scorn and intense humiliation and embarrassment; specially, the Plaintiff's employment at the University of South Carolina was terminated by its administration and he has been permanently damaged and his reputation has been permanently tarnished with respect to his future employment opportunities in the highly sensitive profession of teaching Philosophy to young college students, which he had intended to make his life's work, and to which he has devoted many long and hard...