Nicholas v. Oklahoma City Mailer's Union No. 30
| Decision Date | 21 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 36457,36457 |
| Citation | 285 P.2d 399 |
| Parties | 36 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2373, 28 Lab.Cas. P 69,317, 1955 OK 185 Thomas E. NICHOLAS, Plaintiff in Error, v. OKLAHOMA CITY MAILER'S UNION NO. 30 et al., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where the plaintiff, in an action for libel, has established that defendants have published defamatory matter capable of being reasonably interpreted by persons of ordinary intelligence as referring to him, such publication is presumed to be malicious, and lack of malice and/or that the publication was privileged are matters of defense. And, in such case, where plaintiff's evidence, together with all of the reasonable inferences deducible therefrom, tend to prove such publication by defendants, it is error to sustain their demurrer thereto.
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, F. B. H. Spellman, Assigned Judge.
Action for an injunction and to recover damages for libel and for invasion of plaintiff's alleged right to privacy. From a judgment for defendants, upon the sustaining of their demurrer to plaintiff's evidence, plaintiff appeals. Reversed with directions.
Looney, Watts, Ross, Looney & Nichols, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
Schwoerke & Schwoerke and James E. Grigsby, Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.
The order in which the parties to this appeal appear here is the same in which they appeared in the trial court; and we will hereinafter refer to them as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants', as they appeared there.
Plaintiff, at all times material to this controversy was an employee of the Oklahoma Publishing Company, which publishes the Daily Oklahoman newspaper and other publications in Oklahoma City. Previous to May 16, 1949, his position with said company was that of a 'Station Manager.' On May 14, 1949, members of the defendant union who were regularly employed in the 'mailing room' of said company ceased their work. This cessation has been described both as a 'lock-out' and a 'strike', and was accompanied by picketing. On May 16, 1949, plaintiff was transferred from his job as station manager to one of the jobs in the mailing room, apparently left vacant by one of the union members on strike. The next day, and again on June 7, 1951, the defendant union caused to be published in another newspaper, called 'The Advertiser', large advertisements concerning the strike. The first one was headed or entitled in large black type: 'Know Your Neighbor.' It announced, among other things, that members of the defendant union had been 'locked out.' The ad also contained plaintiff's name and address in a three-column list of names and addresses of other persons who apparently had continued to work for the publishing company during the strike. The last advertisement shown to have been thus published by the defendant union was entitled 'Strikebreakers', and in the lower portion thereof, displayed individual photographs, with their names and addresses immediately beneath, of six of the publishing company's employees, including plaintiff, all under the following statement:
'The following description of a strikebreaker by a famous author is as follows:
'Whether non-union employes replace union members who have been 'locked out' as technically described by the union, or whether they are employed to break a 'strike' they are
Thereafter, on October 29, 1951, plaintiff commenced the present action against the union, and three of its officers, as defendants, alleging, in substance, that said defendants' causing the above described advertisements to be published was libel and a violation of plaintiff's alleged 'right to privacy', and praying both for damages against them in the sum of $5,000 and an injunction restraining them 'from invading * * * (his) rights * * * and for other relief as the court may deem just and equitable.'
In their answer, defendants did not specifically deny publication of the advertisements complained of but, among others, asserted the following alleged defense:
'Defendants state that they have the right to disseminate and publish all of the facts concerning its labor dispute with said Publishing Company, which right is guaranteed to them by the Federal Constitution and that said advertisements complained of were made to make known the facts of said labor dispute existing between said Mailers Union and said Publishing Company, which dispute is a matter of public concern and interest.'
At the trial, without a jury, the trial court sustained defendants' general demurrer to plaintiff's evidence and thereafter entered judgment denying him any relief, upon finding that the 'publications' involved were neither 'libelous per se' nor invaded 'plaintiff's right of privacy.'
In this appeal from said judgment, plaintiff concedes that his evidence was insufficient to show that he suffered any special...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlas Sewing Centers, Inc. v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ETC.
...Free Press, 298 Mass. 267, 10 N.E. 2d 187, 188; Albert Miller & Co. v. Corte, 5 Cir., 107 F.2d 432, 435; Nicholas v. Oklahoma City Mailer's Union No. 30, Okl., 285 P.2d 399, 401. 8 Marteney v. United Press Ass'n, 10 Cir., 224 F.2d 714, 715; Washington Post Co. v. Chaloner, 250 U.S. 290, 293......
-
MF Patterson Dental Supply Company v. Wadley
...properly submitted to the jury the issue of malice, the presence of which obviates the issue of privilege. See Nicholas v. Oklahoma City Mailer's Union, Okl., 285 P.2d 399; Bland v. Lawyer-Cuff Co., 72 Okl. 128, 178 P. 885; Atlas Sewing Centers v. Nat'l Ass'n, Etc., supra; Iverson v. Frands......