Leonard v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 08 May 1942
• Citation: 8 So.2d 12,150 Fla. 503
• Parties: LEONARD et al. v. WILSON.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

8 So.2d 12

150 Fla. 503

LEONARD et al. v. WILSON.

Florida Supreme Court

May 8, 1942

Hodges & Barker, of Orlando, for plaintiffs in error.

Mabry Reaves, Carlton & White, of Tampa, and John S. Edwards of Lakeland, for defendant in error.

BUFORD, Justice.

Plaintiff in error filed suit claiming damage occasioned by alleged libel. Judgment was in favor of defendant on directed verdict.

If the communication containing the alleged libelous matter or statement was a qualifiedly privileged communication and was made without malice, then plaintiff had no cause of action and the judgment was without error.

Defendant was a physician employed and directed to make a physical examination of plaintiff who was an employee of Federal Emergency Relief Administration.

Plaintiff submitted herself to the proposed examination and Dr. Wilson made what he reasonably considered the requisite examination to determine plaintiff's fitness for the work in which she was employed. After making the examination, defendant was directed by an officer of the organization who directed the examination to be made, to report to Conrad Van Hyning, the head of the Federal Emergency Administration in Florida, the result of the examination. This he did and in that report is found the alleged libel.

A careful reading of the record discloses no evidence from which malice may be inferred and if the communication was privileged the presumption is it was without malice. Coogler v. Rhodes, 38 Fla. 240, 21 So. 109, 56 Am.St.Rep. 170; Abraham v. Baldwin, 52 Fla. 151, 42 So. 591, 10 L.R.A., N.S., 1051, 10 Ann.Cas. 1148; Myers v. Hodges, 53 Fla. 197, 44 So. 357.

The general rule as to qualifiedly privileged communications is stated in 33 American Jurisprudence, 168-170, as follows:

'§ 173 Generally.--In accordance with the general principles already outlined, it appears to be clearly settled that a communication respecting the character of an employee or former employee is qualifiedly privileged if made in good faith by a person having a duty in the premises to one who has a definite interest therein. So long as good faith is present, the person making the statement is not limited to facts that are within his personal knowledge; but may, and should, pass on to his inquirer all relevant information that has come to him, regardless of whether he believes it to be true or not. But, of course, any such communication is actionable if made maliciously. While some courts restrict operation of the rule to statements made in response to inquiries, others hold that it applied just as fully to voluntary communications.

'Statements regarding the character and qualifications of applicants for positions in the public service have been held to be within the rule of qualified privilege--that is, they are not actionable if made in good faith and without actual malice.

'§ 174. By Whom Given.--While the character of privilege under consideration is frequently invoked in respect of statements of employers and former employers, it is not confined thereto, but, on the contrary, appears to extend to the communications of all persons who may be under a duty to act in a particular case. Thus, the rule has been held to be applicable to statements made, not only by executive agents of the employer, such as the director of a corporation, the general manager of a mercantile establishment, or the supervisor of a chain of service stations, but also by employees of a lower rank, provided a duty rests on them to speak. Even a stranger may be privileged to make a statement reflecting upon the character of a person working for another, if he acts without malice and in obedience to a moral or social duty.

'§ 175. To Whom Given.--As a general rule, a communication in respect of the character or qualifications of an employee or former employee may be made to any person who has a legitimate interest in the subject matter thereof, such as another employee, a prospective employer, a surety company or a public official. On the other hand, it has been held that a circular letter sent out by a firm of merchants to everyone whose name was on its address book, stating that the plaintiff was no longer in their employ and advising their friends and customers to give him no recognition on their account, is not privileged.

'When an employer makes a charge or accusation against an employee the mere fact that a third person is present does not necessarily destroy the privilege.

'Persons Entitled to Privilege.

'§ 176. Generally.--Since the qualified privilege herein discussed is based on considerations of moral and social duty, it cannot be...