Lee v. Traxler
| Citation | 384 P.3d 82,385 Mont. 354,2016 MT 292 |
| Decision Date | 15 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | DA 15-0716 |
| Parties | Robert Lee, John Hagman, and Matthew Flesch, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Buck E. Traxler, Independent–Observer, Inc., a Montana corporation, Jason Korst, and the City of Conrad, a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Montana, Respondents and Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
For Appellants: Luke Casey, Lee Law Office PC, Shelby, Montana.
For Appellees: Robert B. Pfennigs, Mark T. Wilson, Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett & Weaver PC, Great Falls, Montana.
¶ 1 Appellants Robert Lee, John Hagman, and Matthew Flesch allege Appellees Buck E. Traxler and Independent–Observer, Inc., published defamatory statements about the group concerning an incident at a rest area northeast of Conrad, Montana. All parties filed motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the publication constituted defamatory libel. The District Court determined that the statements were not defamatory and granted summary judgment in favor of Traxler and Independent–Observer, Inc. Lee, Hagman, and Flesch appeal. We affirm.
¶ 2 We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Traxler and the Independent–Observer?
¶ 3 On February 1, 2013, Appellants Robert Lee, John Hagman, Matthew Flesch, and another companion stopped at the Montana Department of Transportation Conrad Rest Area on Interstate 15. Ginny Winters, employed as the custodian of the Rest Area, was in the equipment room when the four men entered the premises. Fearing for her safety due to their loud and boisterous behavior, she locked herself in the equipment room and called the authorities. Conrad City Police Sergeant Jason Korst and two deputies from the Pondera County Sheriff's Office responded to the call.
¶ 4 At the Rest Area, Korst documented the following evidence: a beer can and spilled beer on the floor of one of the restrooms; urine covering the toilet and floor of a restroom; stab marks on the windowsill presumably from a pencil; the suggestion box pencil and notepad, with pages torn out and scattered, on the floor of the Rest Area lobby; and a drawing of a naked female on one of the window dividers. Winters confirmed Korst's statements in her deposition, stating that she was able to observe through a vent one of the men throw a beer can into a restroom and one of the men drawing a picture of a naked woman on the window sill, and that, once the group had left the Rest Area, she noticed deep scratches on the wall of the Rest Area that weren't there prior to the group's arrival.
¶ 5 The Dissent takes issue with our statement of the material facts in this case, arguing that Plaintiffs have consistently maintained that the statements made by the Independent–Observer were false. However, Lee and Hagman both admitted in deposition that a member of the group had thrown a beer can into one of the restrooms. We also note that both Lee and Hagman admitted in deposition that they could not confirm or deny whether one of the group members had drawn a naked woman on the window divider, or scratched and punched holes on the window sills. Further, Flesch admitted in deposition that because of his level of intoxication, he could neither confirm nor deny whether he drew a naked woman on the window divider, or scratched and punched holes on the window sills. Finally, neither Flesch, Lee, or Hagman could confirm or deny whether a member of the group had urinated on the floor of the Rest Area. Therefore, their protests set forth in their Reply Brief, noted in ¶ 31 of the Dissent, are belied by the record.
¶ 6 Over the course of the two months following the Rest Area incident, the local Conrad newspaper, the Independent–Observer, would publish a total of three articles relating to the incident at the Rest Area. Due to their importance to the underlying cause of action, we briefly describe each article.
¶ 7 Six days after the Rest Area incident, the Independent–Observer published a brief article entitled “Vandals hit new I–15 rest area.” The February 7th Article was three sentences in length:
Friday evening four individuals, allegedly from Shelby, were caught vandalizing the new rest area just off the north exit off of I–15. Charges have not yet been filed but are expected to be before the week is over. The I–O will have more information as soon as it becomes available.
¶ 8 Almost a month after the Rest Area incident, the Independent–Observer published an editorial, written by Traxler, the editor of the Independent–Observer, setting forth Traxler's version of the events that occurred on February 1st. The February 28th Article began by stating, “It's been a month now since the four ‘gentlemen’ allegedly from Shelby, and I use that with a great deal of sarcasm, stopped in at the new rest area just off of I–15.” The article continued on in a manner consistent with colorful editorials; in relevant part, the article related certain statements that could be construed as factual assertions:
¶ 9 Seven weeks after the Rest Area incident, the Independent–Observer published a third article, entitled “Two men charged in vandalism.” The March 21st Article reads in full:
Two of the four men from Shelby have been charged in the vandalism case at the new state-of-the-art rest stop just off I–15. Matthew Flesch, age 21, was charged with disorderly conduct and criminal mischief and Robert Lee, age 38, was charged with disorderly conduct in Conrad City Court. Both men have entered a plea of not guilty. Court dates have not yet been set. Chief Gary Dent commented that, “There was just no way to stretch this because they were there,” this in reference to being charged with accountability.
Notably, Hagman was not identified in the March 21st Article.
The Third Article began by noting that “[t]wo of the four men from Shelby have been charged in the vandalism case.”
¶ 11 In response to the articles, Appellants filed a complaint in the Ninth Judicial District Court, Pondera County, against Traxler and Independent–Observer, Inc., on the grounds that the published articles constituted defamatory libel and, not relevant to this appeal, against the City of Conrad and Jason Korst for malicious prosecution.
¶ 12 Traxler and the Independent–Observer moved for summary judgment on the Appellants' claims of defamation, arguing the publications at issue were privileged and true, and that the Appellants had not suffered damages as result of the articles. The City of Conrad moved for summary judgment on the Appellants' claims of malicious prosecution, arguing that the Appellants had failed to prove all the elements of the claim. The District Court granted both motions and dismissed all claims against the Defendants. Lee, Hagman and Flesch appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Traxler and the Independent–Observer.
¶ 13 We review de novo a district court's grant or denial of summary judgment, applying the same criteria of M. R. Civ. P. 56 as a district court. Pilgeram v. GreenPoint Mortg. Funding, Inc. , 2013 MT 354, ¶ 9, 373 Mont. 1, 313 P.3d 839 (citation omitted).
¶ 14 In Montana, the elements of a defamation claim are defined by statute. See §§ 27–1–801 to 27–1–821, MCA. Defamation is effected by either libel or slander. Section 27–1–801, MCA. Libel is defined as a “false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation that exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy or causes a person to be shunned or avoided or that has a tendency to injure a person in the person's occupation.” Section 27–1–802, MCA. The statute creates a three-part requirement for actions involving defamatory libel: first, the publication must be false; second, the publication must not be privileged; and third, the publication must be defamatory, in that it exposes the person to “hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy,” or causes “a person to be shunned or avoided,” or has a tendency to injure the person in his or her occupation.
¶ 15 The foregoing statutory scheme must be interpreted in light of Article II, Section 7, of the Montana Constitution, which provides, in relevant part, “[i]n all suits and prosecutions for libel or slander the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and the jury, under the direction of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rolan v. New W. Health Servs.
...briefs in concluding on summary judgment that the Employment Agreement was unenforceable. Junkermier, ¶ 22 (citations omitted). In Lee v. Traxler, 2016 MT 292, ¶ 16, 385 Mont. 384 P.3d 82, although the "skeletal nature" of the district court's summary judgment order prevented this Court fro......
-
Maas v. City of Billings
...Claims (Counts I-III) 1. Defamation (Count I) Under Montana law, "[d]efamation is effected by either libel or slander." Lee v. Traxler, 384 P.3d 82, 86 (Mont. 2016). "Slanderous words are spoken, whereas libelous words are written." Tindall v. Konitz Contracting Inc., 783 P.2d 1376, 1382 (M......
-
Kelly v. Boone Karlberg P.C.
... ... state law claim for defamation against Franz and the Boone ... Karlberg law firm. Under Montana law “[d]efamation is ... effected by either libel or slander.” Mont. Code Ann ... § 27-1-801; see Lee v. Traxler , 384 P.3d 82, 86 ... (Mont. 2016). Slanderous defamation is spoken, while libelous ... defamation is written. Tindall v. Konitz Contracting ... Inc. , 783 P.2d 1376, 1382 (Mont. 1989). Kelly alleges he ... was defamed in a written document; therefore, any defamation ... ...
-
Myers v. Shaun R. Thompson (In His Pers. Capacity
...causes a person to be shunned or avoided, or has a tendency to injure the person in his or her occupation." Id.; see also Lee v. Traxler, 384 P.3d 82, 86 (Mont. 2016). "It is not sufficient, standing alone, that the language at issue is unpleasant, annoying, or irksome, or that it subjects ......