Forman v. Murphy, 84-2397
| Decision Date | 24 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-2397,84-2397 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 78,501 So.2d 640 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 78 Marvin D. FORMAN, Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, International Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. Harold MURPHY, Appellee/Cross Appellant. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John C. Randolph and Maureen A. Hackett of Johnston, Sasser, Randolph & Weaver, West Palm Beach, for appellants/cross-appellees.
Montgomery, Lytal, Reiter, Denney & Searcy, P.A., and Philip M. Burlington of Edna L. Caruso, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross-appellant.
D. Culver Smith, III, Donald M. Middlebrooks, L. Martin Reeder, Jr., Thomas R. Julin, and Joan H. Lowenstein of Steel Hector Davis Burns & Middleton, Palm Beach, and Ray Ferrero, Jr., of Ferrero, Middlebrooks, Strickland & Fischer, Fort Lauderdale, for amici curiae-Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., News & Sun Sentinel Co., and Photo Electronics Corp.
The defendant/police lieutenant appeals a defamation award against him in favor of the plaintiff/police sergeant. We reverse and remand with direction to enter final judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff cross appeals the trial court's order, which granted another police lieutenant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm the cross appeal.
We hold that the communications in question were both clearly made within the scope of the two lieutenants' duties, thus absolutely protecting the defendants from liability by virtue of the four-three decision in City of Miami v. Wardlow, 403 So.2d 414 (Fla.1981). The majority of the supreme court in Wardlow agreed with the analysis in Cripe v. Board of Regents, 358 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 710 (Fla.1978), and quashed the two-one decision in Wardlow v. City of Miami, 372 So.2d 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), saying:
We agree with the court's analysis in Cripe concluding that the controlling factor in deciding whether a public employee is absolutely immune from actions for defamation is whether the communication was within the scope of the officer's duties.
Id. at 416. In so holding the court aligned Florida with the rule adopted for all officers of the United States in Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959). The text of the comments appearing in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 591, recites, in part:
b. In Barr v. Matteo (1959) 360 U.S. 564 [79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434], it was held that the rule of absolute privilege stated in Clause (a) extends to all officers of the United States, no matter how inferior their position or duties, so long as the publication is made in the performance of the duties, or, as the Court put it, within the "outer perimeter" of their duties. Accordingly, the rule stated in Clause (a) extends to all federal officers.
....
f. The absolute privilege stated in this Section exists only when the officer, whether he is a federal officer or a superior officer of a State, publishes the defamatory matter in the performance of his official duties, or within the scope of his line of duty. This does not mean that the publication must be one that the officer in question is required to make, as when the head of a department is required by law to file an annual report concerning its affairs. It is enough that the publication is one that the officer is authorized to make in his capacity as an officer. Thus the head of a federal or state department may be authorized to issue press releases giving the public information concerning the conduct of the department, or events of public interest that have occurred in connection with it; and if he is so authorized he is within the scope of his official duties when he gives the information to the press.
The incident which gave rise to the main appeal occurred on November 1, 1978. One of the defendants, Lieutenant Forman, overheard a conversation between the plaintiff, Sergeant Murphy, and two other officers, which took place in a hallway outside Forman's office. During the conversation, Sergeant Murphy allegedly spoke rather disparagingly and resentfully about the police department and the administration; and he also allegedly advised the other two officers to violate department policy regarding off-duty employment. Forman filed a written...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephens v. Geoghegan
...courts of this state have applied this principle. See, e.g., Goetz v. Noble, 652 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Forman v. Murphy, 501 So.2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Skoblow v. Ameri-Manage, Inc., 483 So.2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), approved by Spooner v. Department of Corrections, 514 So.2d ......
-
Malone v. City of Satellite Beach
...v. Draper, 678 So.2d 917 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).5 See Stewart v. Sun Sentinel Co., 695 So.2d 360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Forman v. Murphy, 501 So.2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 513 So.2d 1062 (Fla.1987); Skoblow v. Ameri-Manage, Inc., 483 So.2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), approved, Spooner ......
-
Cassell v. India
...was fraud and a potential crime to his own superiors and, at their request, to the insurance department. See Forman v. Murphy, 501 So.2d 640, 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (holding that the filing of a report a superior officer about a conversation which violated the police department's policies ......
-
DEL Pino Allen v. Santelises
...deemed voluntary, thus, it is axiomatic that the statements were made within the scope of his employment duties. See Forman v. Murphy, 501 So.2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (holding that a police officer was entitled to absolute immunity for statements made pursuant to a duty imposed by the pol......