Herman v. Labor Cooperative Educational & Pub. Soc.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4209-53. |
| Citation | 139 F. Supp. 35 |
| Parties | Samuel HERMAN, Plaintiff, v. LABOR COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL AND PUBLISHING SOCIETY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Kenneth N. Parkinson, Joseph L. Nellis, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Burton K. Wheeler, Robert G. Seaks, Robert M. Scott, Washington, D. C., for defendant.
Plaintiff seeks damages for libel. Defendant has moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint while plaintiff seeks partial summary judgment that the articles complained of are libelous per se, were printed maliciously without justification in fair comment or the protection of privilege or otherwise. Plaintiff requests the Court to decide only the issue of liability, saving the assessment of damages for a jury.
Defendant, Labor Cooperative Educational and Publishing Society, publishes a weekly newspaper of news and editorial material called Labor which is distributed nationally and internationally. Plaintiff alleges that defendant caused to be published in Labor two articles discussing and commenting upon the banning of plaintiff from practice as an attorney before the International Claims Commission (now the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission) for allegedly unethical conduct in soliciting clients for private purposes; that such articles contain false, scandalous and defamatory material imputing dishonesty, moral turpitude and the commission of a crime to plaintiff, thereby injuring his name and reputation and diminishing his professional standing throughout the United States. Plaintiff further contends that defendant published the material maliciously, with an intent to injure his name and reputation, having knowledge of falsity in the statements at the time of publication.
It is the position of defendant that the sting or substance of the matter alleged to be defamatory is true; that it is the truth which has hurt plaintiff rather than any misstatements of fact or commentary; and that, in any event, a defense need not be offered as to every word in an allegedly defamatory publication. Defendant denies that the material is malicious or was so intended and contends that the articles are protected by what must be considered a conditional privilege, i. e., the newspaper, being prompted by an honest desire to present to public scrutiny the misconduct of a public official in the administration of his public duties, may not be held for libel even though it publishes misstatements of fact, so long as it was not done maliciously, was for a valid purpose and was executed with good motives. Defendant also summons to its defense the doctrine of fair comment.
The law of defamation presents difficult questions and there is much confusion in the field. Although constituting a distinct type of civil wrong, inasmuch as the subject matter is concerned with words and human understanding and the nature of the harm it occasions is relatively abstract, it is a branch of tort law, no different from other civil wrongs, and consequently should not be treated differently. The courts must and should determine whether the evidence submitted creates issues upon which reasonable men may differ, the existence or non-existence of any legal duty which may be involved, and the general standard of conduct which the law exacts. In cases where reasonable men could not differ on the facts, the Court itself may determine the facts. Where reasonable men might differ, the jury is left to resolve the facts and impose liability in accordance with the law as the Court gives it.
Applying these fundamentals to this libel action, issues of fact and law are analyzed in the following sequence and manner:
Are the words defamatory? This question must be separated into three subsidiary questions, the first two being issues of fact, the third, one of law. First: What do the words mean? Do they have a meaning which would be understood identically by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
From v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc.
...is lost when an opinion is published with malice showing either a bad faith or a bad motive. See Herman v. Labor Co-Op Educational & Publishing Society, 139 F.Supp. 35 (D.D.C.1956). The minority view held that even false statements of fact were privileged if they were made for the public be......
-
Avianca, Inc. v. Corriea
...harm would have been the same whether the minor misstatements had been included or not." Herman v. Labor Cooperative Educational and Publishing Society, 139 F.Supp. 35, 37-38 (D.D.C.1956). Plaintiffs argue, and the Court agrees, that both of the alleged defamatory statements were substantia......