Parrish v. Allison
| Decision Date | 19 December 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 4322.,4322. |
| Citation | 656 S.E.2d 382,376 S.C. 308 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Kim PARRISH, Appellant, v. Earl ALLISON, Respondent. |
J. Michael Turner, Sr., and Matthew P. Turner, of Laurens, for Appellant.
Frank L. Eppes and L. Lee Plumblee, of Greenville, for Respondent.
In this defamation action, Kim Parrish (Parrish) sued Earl Allison (Allison) for statements alleged to be slander per se. The trial court denied Parrish's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The jury returned a verdict for Allison. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Appellant Parrish is the great-niece of Allison. Over the years, family disagreements have resulted in numerous insinuations and incidents by both sides. Frequently at issue was the family land which has been divided over time between Allison, Parrish, and others. The events leading to this defamation action arose when Parrish began efforts to have the county close a portion of road where her land is located. At a Laurens County Council (the Council) meeting, Parrish appeared and yoked her concerns regarding the safety of the road. Allison expressed his opposition at a subsequent council meeting where he made the statements at issue. Specifically, Allison said Parrish had (a) "conned his mother [Parrish's great-grandmother] into signing her land over to [Parrish]," and (b) "conned [his mother] out of her insurance money."
Prior to the meetings, Parrish visited Allison at his home to discuss her intentions to ask the county to close the road. Although Allison initially told Parrish he was neutral, he later decided to oppose the closing. Allison's change in position was sparked by an article he read in the local newspaper. It reported that Parrish, at the first meeting, told the Council a man fell off a golf cart and was run over on the road. Allison knew this incident never happened. However, Parrish's testimony revealed her nephew fell off a go-cart in another locale and was run over leaving him with a lengthy recovery. The record established that the newspaper had misquoted Parrish. At trial, Parrish said she told the Council of her nephew's ordeal to illuminate the devastation of "freak accidents."
At the inception of the second county council meeting, an announcement was made clarifying the newspaper had "reported incorrectly. Allison, advanced in years and hard of hearing, was present but testified repeatedly he did not hear the correction. He proceeded to make his statements believing Parrish had told a lie and the Council would rely on a fabrication in deciding whether to close the road. Allison made the following statements about Parrish:
I don't know why she is driving this so hard with lies to get it accomplished. [T]he point about the man getting run over on Allison Road is an absolute lie. This is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard. This should have been kicked out the first time she came in here with this big tale. We have had trouble with this woman ever since she has been living in Hickory Tavern. The things that she has done and gotten by with.... she got by with cutting Tony Lollis water line and blocking the road off. I want to tell you how kind-hearted she is. My mother lived to be an old, old woman. She conned her into signing the whole place ... house, land and furniture, two insurance policies. She, did not show up at the funeral. She did not show up at the Mortuary and paid not one penny towards the funeral. The two insurance policies were for her funeral. She is a dangerous woman. (Emphasis supplied).
Allison does not deny making the statements though testimony is inconsistent as to whether he used "conned" to imply "stole" or "persuaded." In a deposition, Allison insisted on the truth of his statements and answered the questions of Parrish's attorney as follows:
But on direct examination by Parrish's attorney, Allison testified:
...
On direct examination by his own attorney, Allison further explained the circumstances behind his statements.
The trial court denied Parrish's motion for directed verdict at the close of Allison's case. Prior to jury instructions, Parrish renewed her objection that Allison had not pled the affirmative defense of truth. The trial court ruled "I certainly think that reading the answer in a liberal manner, even though it is an affirmative defense I think that it was affirmatively stated that they were going to plead that." The trial court charged the jury: The jury returned a verdict in Allison's favor. The trial court denied Parrish's motions for a new trial or judgment not withstanding the verdict.
1. Did the trial judge err in denying motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the statements of the respondent constituted slander per se?
2. Did the trial judge err in allowing Allison to present truth as a defense and in charging the jury on truth when truth was not pled as an affirmative defense?
"In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried by a jury, the jurisdiction of the appellate court extends merely to the correction of errors of law, and a factual finding by a jury will not be disturbed unless a review of the record discloses that there is no evidence which reasonably supports the jury's finding." Erickson v. Jones Street Publishers, LLC, 368 S.C. 444, 464, 629 S.E.2d 653, 663 (2006); Townes Assoc., Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McFarland v. McFarland
...a person has engaged in adultery or fornication" are considered defamatory per se under Illinois law); Parrish v. Allison, 376 S.C. 308, 656 S.E.2d 382, 389 (S.C.Ct.App. 2007) (holding that under South Carolina law "slander is actionable per se" where plaintiff is alleged to have committed ......
-
Fredrich v. Dolgencorp, LLC
...Actionable per se means the statement is presumed injurious without proof of malice or special damages. Parrish v. Allison, 376 S.C. 308, 321, 656 S.E.2d 382, 389 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007). Accordingly, a factual dispute exists as to what was actually stated—did Belser ever say the word stealing......
-
Leask v. Robertson, 2:21-cv-2367-DCN
...common law.2. South Carolina Common Law Defamation claims can be brought for either libel or slander. Parrish v. Allison, 376 S.C. 308, 656 S.E.2d 382, 388 (App. 2007). "Libel is the publication of defamatory material by written or printed words," while slander is "spoken defamation." Id. T......
- Ameristone Tile, LLC v. Ceramic Consulting Corp.