Montgomery v. Big B, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1984 |
| Parties | 119 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2731 Barbara MONTGOMERY and Hoyt Montgomery v. BIG B, INC., et al. 83-954. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jerry Shirley of Henley, Whitehurst & Shirley, Northport, for appellants.
Wilbor J. Hust, Jr. of Zeanah, Donald & Hust, Tuscaloosa, for appellees.
Plaintiffs Barbara Montgomery and her husband Hoyt Montgomery appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff Barbara Montgomery was employed by Defendant Big B as a store manager and, as such, was responsible for the daily deposit of receipts. She was discharged after the receipts of February 17, 1982, were determined to be missing and no explanation was ever advanced for the disappearance of the money.
Plaintiffs sued Big B, Inc., Steve Collins (district manager and Barbara Montgomery's immediate supervisor), Anthony J. Bruno (president of Big B), Bobby Little (vice president and director of store operations), Dave Rushton (security officer), Joe McDevit (director of store security), and unknown defendants, alleging breach of implied contract, intentional interference with a contract, wrongful discharge, libel and slander, and fraud. On appeal, the Montgomerys argue that the circuit court improperly granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Two issues presented on appeal merit our review.
The Montgomerys argue on appeal that Defendants were guilty of libel and slander: 1) in sending a letter of "recommendation" to Mrs. Montgomery, at her request, which contained a statement as to why she had been discharged; and 2) in communicating to a polygraph operator suspicions that she had acted improperly with regard to the missing deposit.
Alabama law requires that, in order to maintain an action for defamation, a plaintiff must prove that there was publication of the defamatory statement, Willis v. Demopolis Nursing Home, Inc., 336 So.2d 1117, 1120 (Ala.1976), and that the publication was made to "one or more other parties." McDaniel v. Crescent Motors, Inc., 249 Ala. 330, 332, 31 So.2d 343, 344 (1947) (emphasis supplied).
Our review of the record reveals that the letter which allegedly contained defamatory statements concerning Mrs. Montgomery's responsibility for the missing deposit was sent to her upon her request for a letter of recommendation from one of the individual defendants, Bobby Little. There is no evidence that the letter was ever seen by anyone other than the Montgomerys. Moreover, there is no merit to Montgomery's argument that Little's use of the words "To Whom It May Concern" indicated an intention to communicate the contents of the letter to third persons. Because Little was to send the letter to Mrs. Montgomery, he would have had no means of ascertaining the identities of prospective employers to whom the letter could be addressed. The use of the salutation "To Whom It May Concern" simply made the letter appropriate for Mrs. Montgomery's use in more than one situation, if she so desired.
Similarly, information supplied to the operator who administered the polygraph test to Mrs. Montgomery and two other store employees did not amount to slander.
" ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. Town of Argo
...(Ala.1987); WKRG-TV, Inc. v. Wiley, 495 So.2d 617, 619 (Ala.1986); Webster v. Byrd, 494 So.2d 31, 36 (Ala.1986); Montgomery v. Big B, Inc., 460 So.2d 1286, 1288 (Ala.1984); Mead Corp. v. Hicks, 448 So.2d 308, 312 (Ala.1983); Fulton v. Advertiser Co., 388 So.2d 533, 537 (Ala.1980); Browning ......
-
LQA, BY AND THROUGH ARRINGTON v. Eberhart
...Mr. Cox. As such, the court finds that Mr. Cox is entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's slander count. See Montgomery v. Big B, Inc., 460 So.2d 1286 (Ala.1984) (similar analysis and G. Retaliatory Prosecution The plaintiff alleges that Mr. Cox maliciously and without probable caus......
-
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Mays
...67 L.Ed.2d 119 (1981); and O'Barr v. Feist, 292 Ala. 440, 296 So.2d 152 (1974). In Nelson v. Lapeyrouse, supra, and in Montgomery v. Big B, Inc., 460 So.2d 1286 (Ala.1984), the Court held that communications made to polygraph operators in the course of investigating suspected thefts were pr......
-
Guthrie v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
...Tidwell, 502 So. 2d at 748; WKRG-TV, Inc. v. Wiley, 495 So. 2d 617, 619 (Ala. 1986); Webster, 494 So. 2d at 36; Montgomery v. Big B, Inc., 460 So. 2d 1286, 1288 (Ala. 1984); Mead Corp., 448 So. at 312; Fulton v. Advertiser Co., 388 So. 2d 533, 537 (Ala. 1980); Browning, 348 So. 2d at 458; W......