Jacobs v. Transcontinental & Western Air
| Decision Date | 10 November 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 20782.,20782. |
| Citation | 205 S.W.2d 887 |
| Parties | JACOBS v. TRANSCONTINENTAL & WESTERN AIR, Inc., et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Ben Terte, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by W. D. Jacobs against Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc., and another for alleged libel contained in a letter of dismissal. From a judgment of $500 actual damages and $2,500 punitive damages, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Harry L. West, Harold L. Warner, Jr., Garrett & Ruark and Walter A. Raymond, all of Kansas City, for appellants.
Harry C. Clark and Louis W. Krings, both of Kansas City, for respondent.
Plaintiff, respondent here, sued the defendants for alleged libel contained in a letter of dismissal, and obtained a verdict and judgment for $500 actual damages, and $2500 punitive damages. The defendants have appealed.
The substance of plaintiff's amended petition on material issues is that after some fifteens months' employment by the defendants, during all of which time plaintiff was a loyal, industrious, efficient and willing worker, promoting to his best ability the interest and welfare of the defendant corporation, he was on August 20, 1941, dismissed from his employment and was given a letter written by the defendants, without cause, excuse, request or permission on plaintiff's part, which letter read as follows:
The petition alleged that said letter was immediately published, observed and read by G. A. Putnam, L. M. Reed, and others, and persons not employed by the defendant corporation; that it charged the plaintiff with neglect of duties, causing loss of efficiency on the part of other employees by loitering on the employer's premises, and with unwillingness to cooperate in the performance of his duties; that the charges were false and untrue, and so known to the defendants, who knew the said charges were likely to interfere with plaintiff's securing other gainful employment; that the words of said letter were libelous and in defamation of plaintiff's skill, capacity and fitness to perform his duties as polisher, and did tend to prejudice him in his trade, business and employment by imputing want of knowledge, skill, capacity and fitness to perform the same, and were therefore actionable per se; that the words so used were maliciously and spitefully written for the purpose of damaging plaintiff's reputation, and to prevent his securing other gainful employment.
The petition further alleged that plaintiff's reputation was injured and prejudiced by the letter aforesaid in the pursuit of his trade, business and employment, and that he has suffered thereby mental anguish, and will continue to suffer damages and loss of prestige in the community, and be unable to secure gainful employment as a mechanic therein. The petition asked for $500 actual damages and $2,500 punitive damages.
The separate answers of the defendants were identical in substance and admitted the corporation of the employer, the employment of the plaintiff, the position of the defendant Maxfield as assistant superintendent of maintenance, and that the defendant corporation wrote and directed the letter described in plaintiff's petition, and sent copies thereof to G. A. Putnam, L. M. Reed, and to the Airline Mechanics Association. All other allegations of the petition were denied. Further answering, the defendants averred that G. A. Putnam and L. M. Reed were employees of the defendant corporation, and that the letter was sent to them in connection with the normal and customary conduct of the business of said defendant, and to the Airline Mechanics Association, a labor union representing plaintiff and all other employees in the maintenance department of the corporation, in accordance with the custom and practice under such circumstances, and that said union had a common interest in the subject matter of the letter. The answers further alleged that at the time the letter was written they believed the statements therein were true, and that the same were, in fact, true, and the letter was written and sent in good faith and without malice on the part of the defendants.
Plaintiff testified that he began to work for the defendant corporation May 1, 1940, as polisher of airplanes at 40 cents an hour. About a month thereafter he was promoted to ship's cleaner at 42 cents an hour. About a year thereafter he was promoted to apprentice mechanic at 44 cents an hour. On the occasion of this last promotion the company gave the plaintiff a letter so advising him in which it stated that the advancement was being made upon the recommendation of plaintiff's foreman as a result of competent handling . This letter was signed by defendant William Maxfield, assistant superintendent of maintenance.
Plaintiff testified that in this last capacity his duties were to clean parts of the airplanes and in so doing, took them to the steam room and steamed them, thereafter applying a cleaning compound, and removing the dirt and smudge, so that the parts could be repaired and replaced in the airplanes. Fifteen or twenty other men would be working in the vicinity at the same time with the mechanics and cleaning groups. There was no rule prohibiting employees from talking with one another. As an apprentice mechanic the location of his work was in the department where the "steam jenny" was situated. While working on his last assignment he was required to go to that room and more or less over the plant, where the planes were located, to get trucks and equipment, and to obtain the parts from the planes which were to be cleaned for repair. It did not take plaintiff's full time to look after the "steam jenny", and the foreman had told him that whenever he was through working on the "steam jenny" he should go inside and work on the engines and help tear them down, so as to learn that line of work. Plaintiff purchased tools and whenever the "steam jenny" did not require his attention, he would work on the dismantling of engines.
Plaintiff further testified that he made an attempt to join the Airline Mechanics Association, a union representing the employees, and was refused admittance by the union. In August, 1941, the men working in his department started a movement to get into another union because of the dissatisfaction among the employees therein over the failure of the employees of his classification to obtain a raise when employees of other classes were given increases in wages. They made inquiries of the A.F.L. and C.I. O. unions, and plaintiff went to the C.I.O. headquarters, and thereafter solicited union members to get a charter in the C.I.O. at the T.W.A. plant. Plaintiff and others passed out literature and cards early in the mornings, and solicited the employees to sign them and turn them in to the local union or back to plaintiff and the others after working hours. The others so working with plaintiff in the union activities were coemployees named Kirkpatrick, Parsons, Stites and Sabin. The cards and literature were distributed to the employees in front of the employee's entrance to the plant building. They were handed to the men sitting on the railing after eating their lunches, and some were contacted as they were getting into their cars at night. The cards announced a meeting to be held at union headquarters. While the distribution of this literature was going on the foreman and Mr. Putnam and defendant Maxfield passed by and saw plaintiff and the other parties making the distribution. No effort was made to conceal these activities.
According to plaintiff's testimony he joined the C.I.O. union on August 19, 1941, and was discharged on August 20th. About a week prior the foreman, Mr. Melton, had praised the plaintiff's work, and told him that he had kept the work up in better shape than any one he had had on that job. Mr. Melton told him he had recommended plaintiff to Mr. Putnam and Mr. Maxfield for the position of junior mechanic at 70 cents an hour. After that and until the day of the discharge, Mr. Putnam had never discussed plaintiff's work with him. On that last day, however, when plaintiff had caught up with his work and while he was talking with the master mechanic in regard to any further mechanical work, the foreman, Mr. Melton, asked him: Plaintiff answered: "No, Mr. Melton, all my work outside is caught up and I came in...
To continue reading
Request your trial