Hairford v. Long
| Decision Date | 13 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-805,82-805 |
| Citation | 430 So.2d 393 |
| Parties | Wayne HAIRFORD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gordon LONG, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Dan B. McKay, Jr. of Nelson M. Lee & Associates, Bunkie, for defendant-appellant.
Ben C. Bennett, Jr. and William J. Bennett, Marksville, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before GUIDRY, STOKER and KNOLL, JJ.
The defendant, Gordon Long, appeals the judgment of the trial court awarding plaintiff, Wayne Hairford, $3,000.00 for an alleged defamation. We reverse.
The remark which forms the basis of this suit was part of the defendant's testimony as a witness in another defamation suit brought by the plaintiff. The suits arose as a result of the plaintiff's expulsion from the Lake View Hunting Club. The board of directors of the club voted to expel the plaintiff on April 28, 1978. The plaintiff brought suit against two members of the board of directors, J.C. Meche and Burke Veillon. During the trial of the latter suit, Mr. Long, the secretary of the club and a board member, was called to testify regarding the vote to expel the plaintiff from the club. The defendant testified in part as follows:
"Q. Now on (sic) your April meeting, as I understand it, the Board of Directors, with one absent voted not to renew Mr. Hairford's card, Mr. Wayne Hairford's card.
A. Right.
Q. Do you recall whether the vote was unanimous or not of all those present?
A. It was unanimous."
Two other members of the board testified that there was in fact opposition to the motion to expel, in other words, that the vote to expel plaintiff from the club was not unanimous. The plaintiff thereafter brought this suit based on the defendant's statement that the vote to expel the plaintiff was unanimous. The plaintiff claims that as a result of this misstatement of fact, he was refused membership in the Coonville Hunting and Fishing Club; he was refused employment by the club as a security guard; and, he was suspended from the Avoyelles Beagle Association.
The only issue we need address is whether the statement by the defendant, as a witness in this prior proceeding, is privileged. Our resolution of this issue makes it unnecessary to consider whether the statement was defamatory.
Testimony given by a non-litigant witness in a judicial proceeding carries with it an absolute privilege. Bienvenu v. Angelle, 254 La. 182, 223 So.2d 140 (La.1969); Moity v. Busch, 368 So.2d 1134 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1979). This immunity is granted so that witnesses, bound by oath to tell the truth, may speak freely without fear of a civil suit for defamation. Bienvenu v. Angelle, supra; Moity v. Bush, supra. The defendant, who was not a party to the suit in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. Delcarpio
..., 463 So.2d 754, 755 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1985), citing Moity v. Busch , 368 So.2d 1134, 1136 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1979) ; Hairford v. Long , 430 So.2d 393, 394 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1983) ; Bienvenu , supra . A "party" is defined as "one by or against whom a lawsuit is brought." Black's Law Diction......
-
Zuber v. Buie
...witnesses, bound by their oath to tell the truth, may speak freely without fear of a civil suit for defamation. Hairford v. Long, 430 So.2d 393, 394 (La.App. 3d Cir.1983). Fear of a civil suit for damages may lead to two forms of self-censorship. First, the witness might be reluctant to com......
-
Lauga v. McDougall
...to a non-litigant, or non-party, witness. See Moity v. Busch, 368 So.2d 1134, 1136 (La.App. 3d Cir.1979); Hairford v. Long, 430 So.2d 393, 394 (La.App. 3d Cir.1983); Bienvenu v. Angelle, 254 La. 182, 223 So.2d 140 (1969). This rule has been followed by the Fourth Circuit in Freeman v. Coope......