MacConnell v. Mitten, 15346
| Decision Date | 23 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 15346,15346 |
| Citation | 131 Ariz. 22,638 P.2d 689 |
| Parties | Forrest C. MacCONNELL, a single man, Appellant, v. Frederick G. MITTEN and Eileen Mitten, husband and wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Steven M. Friedman, Phoenix, for appellant.
David S. Shughart, II, Phoenix, for appellees.
Plaintiff, Forrest MacConnell, brought an action against defendants Frederick G. Mitten, Eileen Mitten, and other persons who are not part of this appeal, regarding allegedly defamatory statements that were made by Fred Mitten at the time of plaintiff's termination by his employer, the Bureau of Medical Economics. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted with directions that the judgment be entered pursuant to Rule 54(b), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S. Plaintiff appeals the granting of the motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-2101(B) and Rule 19(e), Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure, 17A A.R.S.
We must answer the following questions on appeal:
1. Were the statements made by Fred Mitten to his son regarding Forrest MacConnell defamatory and actionable?
2. Did the remarks of Fred Mitten regarding the reason for MacConnell's termination injure plaintiff in his business or profession?
3. Do genuine issues of material fact remain that would preclude the grant of summary judgment to defendants Frederick G. Mitten and Eileen Mitten?
The facts necessary to a determination of this appeal, and viewed in a light most favorable to MacConnell, the party against whom the motion for summary judgment was granted, Mobile Home Estates, Inc. v. Levitt Mobile Homes Systems, Inc., 118 Ariz. 219, 575 P.2d 1245 (1978), are as follows. Frederick Mitten was the Executive Secretary of the Maricopa County Medical Society for 25 years until his retirement in 1976. At that time, his son, Anthony Mitten, assumed his duties as chief administrative officer of the Maricopa County Medical Society and its affiliated collection agency, the Bureau of Medical Economics. Both had worked closely with MacConnell, first in his position as a collector and later as manager of the Bureau of Medical Economics. For the last five years of MacConnell's employment, the Bureau of Medical Economics had sustained losses, and as a result, MacConnell was terminated.
Beginning shortly before MacConnell was terminated, a series of acts of vandalism began at Fred Mitten's house. Paint was splashed on the house and cars, and rocks were thrown through the windows. As a result, Fred Mitten's wife, Eileen, was hospitalized twice, once with a heart attack. After each of these attacks, Fred discussed the incidents with his son, Anthony. On more than one occasion, Fred Mitten wondered aloud if MacConnell had done it. The basis of Fred Mitten's suspicion was that the paint used by the vandal was the same color as MacConnell's recently painted house. In addition, Mitten believed that MacConnell was angry at having been terminated, and that he was prone to "violent rages."
Following MacConnell's termination, Fred Mitten was asked by doctors associated with Maricopa County Medical Society for the reason for MacConnell's discharge. In response to inquiries from Dr. Kennedy and Dr. Frazier, Mitten stated that he assumed MacConnell was terminated because the Bureau had been losing money for five years.
When discussing the incidents of vandalism with his son, Fred Mitten speculated over who might have been responsible. Fred Mitten stated in his deposition:
We believe that the remarks made by Fred Mitten to his son Anthony were conditionally or qualifiedly privileged. There is, admittedly, no strict formula by which a conditional privilege is applied. Rather, the process is one of weighing the individual's interest in reputation against society's interest in free speech and in encouraging certain beneficial communications. In doing so, we will look to the occasion in which the statement was made and not the statement itself.
"It is the occasion for the publication rather than the language thereof which We believe the family relationship provides a qualified privilege for the statements made by Fred Mitten to his son. Section 597 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts states as to family relationships:
gives rise to the privilege, and the privilege attaches in spite of the character of the publication itself, and continues until properly rebutted." Phoenix Newspapers v. Choisser, 82 Ariz. 271, 276, 312 P.2d 150, 154 (1957). See also Roscoe v. Schoolitz, 105 Ariz. 310, 464 P.2d 333 (1970).
(a) there is information that affects the well-being of a member of the immediate family of the publisher, and
(b) the recipient's knowledge of the defamatory matter will be of service in the lawful protection of the well-being of the member of the family.
In the instant case, the Mitten's house had been vandalized on more than one occasion. Paint had been hurled at the house, their cars had been splattered with paint, and rocks had been thrown through the front window. The incidents occurred when the Mittens were gone and in the early hours of the morning. It was evident that these attacks were calculated to be unexplained and frightening to the Mittens. They had achieved the desired effect. Fred Mitten was concerned about the acts of vandalism and worried about his wife, who was ill and suffered a heart attack believed to be caused in large part by her fear and worry about the continuing acts of vandalism. It is to be expected that Fred Mitten would discuss the matter with his son, Anthony. In view of the disturbing occurrences of vandalism and Mrs. Mitten's precarious health, it would indeed be surprising if Fred Mitten had not communicated his concerns to his son. We believe that this communication is an occasion which justifies application of the qualified privilege. We hold that this communication comes within the scope of the conditional privilege of § 597 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Mroz
...challenges the publication of facts which, taken together, reasonably imply "undisclosed defamatory facts." MacConnell v. Mitten , 131 Ariz. 22, 25, 638 P.2d 689, 692 (1981). Implied defamation claims necessarily rely on nuance and unstated inferences to reach a conclusion neither written n......
-
Garson v. Hendlin
...Misc. 527, 101 N.Y.S.2d 787; Brown v. Collins, 402 F.2d 209 [D.C.Cir.]; Manley v. Manley, 291 S.C. 325, 353 S.E.2d 312; MacConnell v. Mitten, 131 Ariz. 22, 638 P.2d 689; Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803 [Fla]; Faber v. Byrle, 171 Kan. 38, 229 P.2d 718; Stewart v. Nation-Wide Check Corp., 2......
-
Yetman v. English
...Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 812, 110 S.Ct. 59, 107 L.Ed.2d 26 (1989); MacConnell v. Mitten, 131 Ariz. 22, 25, 638 P.2d 689, 692 (1981) (applying federal law). 2 But English's position has been weakened; last year in Milkovich, the United States Sup......
-
Dunlap v. Wayne
...cert. denied, 449 U.S. 982, 101 S.Ct. 398, 66 L.Ed.2d 244 (1980) (predicting how Delaware courts would rule); MacConnell v. Mitten, 131 Ariz. 22, 25, 638 P.2d 689, 692 (1981); Beckman v. Dunn, 276 Pa.Super. 527, 535-36, 419 A.2d 583, 587 We believe the rule of Restatement § 566 should be ad......