Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Watkins

Decision Date27 February 1920
Docket Number8442.
Citation188 P. 99,77 Okla. 270,1920 OK 38
PartiesMISSOURI, K. & T. RY. CO. v. WATKINS.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

Petition for Rehearing Denied March 16, 1920.

Syllabus by the Court.

In an action for libel, where plaintiff has established that defamatory matter has been published by the defendant concerning him, he is entitled to recover unless the "fact" (the publication itself) and the testimony rebut the presumption of malice. The burden of adducing evidence to rebut such presumption is upon the defendant. If the fact and the testimony rebut the presumption of malice the burden then rests upon the plaintiff to show express malice in order to recover.

In an action for libel seeking general damages alone, when the evidence is uncontroverted, it becomes the duty of the court to determine whether or not there is any evidence adduced upon the trial which tends to prove malice. If from the uncontroverted testimony there is no malice shown, then there exists no cause of action, and it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.

Where there is no evidence reasonably tending to establish a material issue submitted to the jury under the instructions of the court, which the jury must have found in favor of the prevailing party in order to have returned the verdict, the verdict will be set aside.

In an action for libel, special damages must be alleged and proved and it is error to instruct the jury on such damages in the absence of such allegation and proof.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

In an action for libel based upon the publication of a letter by plaintiff's former employer to a prospective employer both being railroad companies, stating that plaintiff had been discharged for being drunk while in the company's service, in consequence of which employment was refused, evidence held insufficient to justify an inference of malice on defendant's part.

Error from District Court, Pottawatomie County; Chas. B. Wilson, Jr., Judge.

Action by J. L. Watkins against the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company for libel. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Clifford L. Jackson, of Muskogee, W. R. Allen, of Chicago, Ill., and M. D. Green, of Muskogee, for plaintiff in error.

W. N. Maben and W. S. Pendleton, both of Shawnee, for defendant in error.

PITCHFORD J.

Defendant in error, J. L. Watkins, hereinafter called the plaintiff, instituted this action against the plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, in the district court of Pottawatomie county, for damages on account of alleged false and malicious information given by the defendant in a letter to the Oregon Short Line Railway Company, with reference to the plaintiff's character, qualifications, and fitness as a railroad employé and his standing with the defendant as a railroad brakeman. This letter was written in response to an inquiry made of defendant by written request signed by the plaintiff at the instance of the said Oregon Short Line Railway Company, and forwarded by that company to the defendant's superintendent at Muskogee, Okl. It was alleged by the plaintiff that this communication was a willful, wicked, false, and malicious libel; that by reason thereof the plaintiff was relieved of his temporary employment with the Oregon Short Line Railway Company; and that his standing and character as a railroad workman have been ruined, it being impossible for him to secure employment with any other railroad company. Plaintiff claims that he has been damaged in the sum of $20,000.

Defendant answered, alleging said letter was written in good faith in response to a request for information, and without any malice, ill will, or evil intent toward the plaintiff, and that the same was a privileged communication. A verdict was returned by the jury in favor of the plaintiff for $1,500. Defendant appeals.

The evidence discloses that plaintiff first began to work for the defendant company in 1900, but the length of time of his service is not stated. We find, however, that in 1901 he was working for the H. & T. C. at Ennis, Tex. In December, 1908, he re-entered the service of the defendant company at Denison, Tex., and resigned on July 14, 1910. During July, 1910, plaintiff was suspended by the defendant company on account of violating rule G, which appears to be universally understood in railroad circles to mean drunkenness while in the company's service. Plaintiff asked for an investigation of this charge, the investigation was made, and plaintiff was reinstated after being suspended four or five days. He then resigned as above stated on the 14th of July. He was next employed by the Frisco at Ft. Worth, Tex., in the spring of 1911, but was cut off after the stock rush after working about six weeks. This company gave him a service letter which was worn out or lost. He then went to work for the F. W. & D. at Amarillo, Tex., in June, 1911, and worked four days, being discharged on account of reduction in force. Did not get a service letter. He then re-entered the service of the defendant company at Denison in September, 1911, but the duration of his employment is not stated. He did no railroading in 1912. His next employment was with the S. A. & A. P. in the first part of 1913 at Yoakum, Tex., where he worked for about six weeks during the stock rush, and was cut off on account of reduction in force. Received from this company a service letter, but lost it. He then went to work with the Burlington at La Crosse, Wis., in July, 1913, and was cut off, he says, on account of his application. He next secured employment with the G., H. & H. in Texas in August, 1913, for three weeks, and lost out on account of his application. In October, 1913, he went with the S. P. at Los Angeles, Cal., for about ten days, and lost his place, as he stated, on account of his application. He then hired with the W. P. at Orrsville, Cal., but did not get to work because they fired him, as he states, before he got out. He then went to Sacramento and attempted to make application under an assumed name using another railroad man's name and his references, and represented that they were his references; but he says he could not get by with them. That was October, 1913. He then went to Pocatello, Idaho, with the Oregon Short Line on November 24, 1913. Under date of December 3, 1913, the defendant wrote the Oregon Short Line Railway Company in response to a request from the plaintiff as to his personal character, habits, and ability, and the cause of his leaving the employment of the defendant company. Upon receipt of this letter the defendant was discharged by the Oregon Short Line Railway Company.

There is no evidence in the record showing that the plaintiff after his last discharge sought employment with any other railroad company, or that he was at any time refused employment by reason of the report furnished by the defendant company. Immediately upon his discharge he went to Muskogee, Okl., for the purpose of having his record cleared, but failed to receive any satisfaction at that time. However, the employés of the defendant in the office of its superintendent at Muskogee, after diligent search, discovered that the letter of December 3, 1913, addressed to the Oregon Short Line Company, did not cover the cause of the plaintiff's finally leaving the defendant's service. They thereupon at once wrote a letter to the superintendent of the Oregon Short Line Company under date of March 30, 1914, containing a statement of the cause of plaintiff's finally leaving the service, to wit, that he resigned ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT