Pagoto v. Hancock, Docket No. 13223
| Decision Date | 27 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Docket No. 13223,2 |
| Citation | 200 N.W.2d 777,41 Mich.App. 622 |
| Parties | Joseph PAGOTO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barrington HANCOCK, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Charles Gottlieb, Gottlieb, Eason & Goren, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Douglas M. Black, Port Huron, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and QUINN and DANHOF, JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action seeking to recover for damages caused by an allegedly slanderous remark. From the plaintiff's complaint, it appears that the allegedly defamatory remark was made by a witness during the course of a judicial proceeding. The defendant moved for summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117.2(1) on the ground of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The trial court granted the motion and the plaintiff has appealed. We affirm.
Generally speaking statements made by witnesses are absolutely privileged. Timmis v. Bennett, 352 Mich. 355, 89 N.W.2d 748 (1958), 3 Restatement of Torts, § 588, p. 244. However, as the plaintiff points out, the privilege applies only when the allegedly defamatory statements are in some manner relevant or pertinent to the matter being tried.
Once it has been established that the statements were made during the course of a judicial proceeding there arises a presumption that they were relevant to the matter being tried. Sanders v. Leeson Air Conditioning Corp., 362 Mich. 692, 108 N.W.2d 761 (1961). A case that is quite similar to the case at bar is Hartung v. Shaw, 130 Mich. 177, 89 N.W. 701 (1902). Hartung was a libel action where the allegedly defamatory material was contained in an answer to a bill in chancery. At trial the defendants objected to the introduction of testimony and the trial court ruled in their favor and directed a verdict. In discussing the issue the Court stated at p. 180, 89 N.W. p. 702:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellis v. Kaye-Kibbey
...aff'd sub nom. Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 597 N.W.2d 817, reh'g den., 461 Mich. 1205, 602 N.W.2d 576 (1999); Pagoto v. Hancock, 41 Mich.App. 622, 200 N.W.2d 777 (1972). 16. Ellis repeatedly cites decisions from other jurisdictions apparently holding, inter alia, that a non-disparagem......
-
McGranahan v. Dahar
...under oath are included within the absolute privilege, provided they are pertinent to the proceeding. See, e. g., Pagoto v. Hancock, 41 Mich.App. 622, 200 N.W.2d 777 (1972); Aborn v. Lipson, 357 Mass. 71, 256 N.E.2d 442 (1970). Nearly a century ago, we affirmed the need for such a rule: "Pu......
-
Meyer v. Hubbell
...to the issue being tried. Sanders v. Leeson Air Conditioning Corp., 362 Mich. 692, 695, 108 N.W.2d 761 (1961); Pagoto v. Hancock, 41 Mich.App. 622, 623, 200 N.W.2d 777 (1972). This privilege gives witnesses relative freedom to express themselves without fear of retaliation. Sanders, supra, ......
-
Chonich v. Ford
...some panels of this Court have held that GCR 1963, 117.2(1) is the proper basis upon which to bring such a motion. Pagoto v. Hancock, 41 Mich.App. 622, 200 N.W.2d 777 (1972), Gilbert v. Grand Trunk W. R., 95 Mich.App. 308, 314-315, 290 N.W.2d 426 (1980), lv. den. 410 Mich. 854 (1980). In ac......