Ramstead v. Morgan
Citation | 347 P.2d 594,77 A.L.R.2d 481,219 Or. 383 |
Parties | , 77 A.L.R.2d 481 Gordon A. RAMSTEAD, Appellant, v. Lester MORGAN, Respondent. |
Decision Date | 16 December 1959 |
Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Gordon A. Ramstead, Eugene, in pro. per. With him on the brief was B. G. Skulason, Portland.
Windsor Calkins, Eugene, for respondent. On the brief was Clyde N. Johnston, Eugene.
Robert F. Maguire, Portland, for Oregon State Bar as amicus curiae. With him on the brief was Curtis W. Cutsforth, Portland.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and PERRY, O'CONNELL and REDDING, JJ.
This is an action of libel. Plaintiff is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in this state. The alleged libelous statements were contained in a letter written to the chairman of the Lane County grievance committee of the Oregon State Bar. The letter is set out below. The defendant answered, pleading truth, privilege and mitigation. After plaintiff had begun to testify defendant interposed an objection on the ground that the letter did not contain defamatory matter and on the further ground that if it did the statements made in the letter were privileged under ORS 9.550. The trial court sustained the objection on the ground that the statements contained in the defendant's letter, if defamatory, were absolutely privileged. The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of involuntary nonsuit.
The letter written by the defendant to the grievance committee of the Bar read as follows:
'Junction City, Oregon
'June 15, 1956
'Robert B. Carmichael, Chairman
'Lane County Grievance Committee
'U. S. National Bank Building
'Springfield, Oregon
'Dear Sir:
'I am a logger by occupation and I explained to Mr. Ramstead, my attorney, that I did not have time to handle the matter and requested he go ahead and pay the money when he knew that I was fully protected, which Mr. Ramstead agreed to do.
'I might and that Mr. and Mrs. Kelly lost the lawsuit in Douglas County, the Court decreeing they had no interest in the property above mentioned; the Kellys are insolvent and I have no means of collecting anything from them.
'Respectfully submitted,
's/ Lester Morgan
'cc: Mr. John H. Holloway
'Secretary, Oregon State Bar
'502 Pittock Block
'Portland 5, Oregon
The controlling issue on appeal is whether the defendant was protected by an absolute privilege in making the statements contained in the letter set out above.
The absolute privilege to publish defamatory matter under the circumstances to which the privilege applies is based upon the ground that 'there are certain relations of life in which it is so important that the persons engaged in them should be able to speak freely that the law takes the risk of their abusing the occasion and speaking maliciously as well as untruly, and in order that their duties may be carried on freely and without fear of any action being brought against them, it says: 'We will treat as absolutely privileged any statement made in the performance of these duties.'' Moore v. Weaver, 2 K.B. 520, 521 (1928). Generally to the same effect see Moore v. Sater, 1959, 215 Or. 417, 335 P.2d 843; Grubb v. Johnson, 1955, 205 Or. 624, 289 P.2d 1067; Gatley on Libel and Slander (4th ed.), p. 168 et seq.; Newell, Slander and Libel (4th ed.), p. 387 et seq.; Odgers on Libel and Slander (6th ed.), p. 187; O'Sullivan and Brown, The Law of Defamation, p. 56; Prosser on Torts (2d ed.) 607, § 95; 3 Restatement, Torts, Intro. note Ch. 25, Title B, p. 223; Veeder, Absolute Immunity in Defamation, 9 Colum.L.Rev. 463 (1909).
The absolute immunity attaches to statements made in the course of, or incident to a judicial proceeding. McKinney v. Cooper, 1940, 163 Or. 512, 98 P.2d 711 ( ); Irwin v. Ashurst, 1938, 158 Or. 61, 74 P.2d 1127 (judge and counsel); Pitts v. King, 1932, 141 Or. 23, 15 P.2d 379, 472 (pleadings). And so, statements made by parties, witnesses, and affiants are included within the privilege. Parker v. Title & Trust Co., 9 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 505, rehearing denied 9 Cir., 237 F.2d 423 (party); Strycker v. Levell & Peterson, 1948, 183 Or. 59, 190 P.2d 922 (party and affiant); Cooper v. Phipps, 1893, 24 Or. 357, 33 P. 985, 22 L.R.A. 836 (witness); 3 Restatement, Torts 231-234, §§ 587, 588.
The rule of absolute privilege is applicable not only to judicial proceedings but to quasi-judicial proceedings as well. Smith v. O'Brien, 1937, 66 App.D.C. 387, 88 F.2d 769 (statement by Tariff Commissioner); McAlister & Co. v. Jenkins, 1926, 214 Ky. 802, 284 S.W. 88 (findings of Real Estate Commission); 1 Harper & James 427, § 5.23 (1956).
Statements made before various administrative boards and commissions have been recognized as absolutely privileged. Simpson v. Oil Transfer Corporation, D.C.N.D.N.Y.1948, 75 F.Supp. 819 ( ); Duncan v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 9 Cir., 1896, 72 F. 808 (pleading before Interstate Commerce Commission); Parker v. Kirkland, 1939, 298 Ill.App. 340, 18 N.E.2d 709 (statement before county Tax Appeal Board); Kimball v. Ryan, 1936, 283 Ill.App. 456 ( ); Haskell v. Perkins, 1911, 165 Ill.App. 144 ( ); Jarman v. Offutt, 1954, 239 N.C. 468, 80 S.E.2d 248 (affidavit to Lunacy Commission); Fenning v. S. G. Holding Corp., 1957, 47 N.J.Super. 110, 135 A.2d 346 ( ); Rainier's Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc., 1955, 19 N.J. 552, 117 A.2d 889 (petition to Director of Milk Industry); Pacific Employers Inc. Co. v. Adams, 1946, 196 Okl. 597, 168 P.2d 105 ( ); Aransas Harbor Terminal Ry. Co. v. Taber, Tex. Com.App.1921, 235 S.W. 841 ( ); Connellee v. Blanton, Tex.Civ.App.1913, 163 S.W. 404 ( ); Higgins v. Williams Pocahontas Coal Co., 1927, 103 W.Va. 504, 138 S.E. 112 ( ); Larkin v. Noonan, 1865, 19 Wis. 82 ( ).
We have held that statements made in a petition to the probate court by friends of plaintiff's client protesting the appointment of plaintiff as guardian were absolutely privileged. Moore v. Sater, supra. Cf., Gregory v. State Industrial Accident Commission, 1955, 205 Or. 643, 288 P.2d 1069, where the privilege was not recognized because the proceedings were ministerial rather than judicial or quasi-judicial.
The privilege is made applicable to proceedings before administrative bodies having the power to grant and revoke licenses. Lininger v. Knight, 1951, 123 Colo. 213, 226 P.2d 809 ( ); Powers v. Vaughan, 1945, 312 Mich. 297, 20 N.W.2d 196 ( ); Shumway v. Warrick, 1922, 108 Neb. 652, 189 N.W. 301 ( ); Alagna v. New York & Cuba Mail S. S. Co., 1935, 155 Misc. 796, 279 N.Y.S. 319 (letter to Federal Radio Commission); Independent Life Ins. Co. v. Rodgers, 1933, 165 Tenn. 447, 55 S.W.2d 767 (statement to State Insurance Commissioner); Reagan v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 1942, 140 Tex. 105, 166 S.W.2d 909 (statement to Board of Insurance Commissioners). Some courts have held that statements made to licensing agencies are entitled only to a qualified privilege. Walker v. Hunter, 1929, 86 Colo. 483, 283 P. 48 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kraemer v. Harding
...when that Board is sitting in its quasi-judicial function as a licensing body, are absolutely privileged); Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Or. 383, 401, 347 P.2d 594 (1959) absolute privilege attached to former client's statements to a State Bar committee concerning alleged attorney misconduct, bec......
-
Board of Trustees of Weston County School Dist. No. 1, Weston County v. Holso
...or official clothed with judicial or quasi-judicial power. Richeson v. Kessler, 1953, 73 Idaho 548, 255 P.2d 707; Ramstead v. Morgan, 1959, 219 Or. 383, 347 P.2d 594; for many other cases, see West's Digest System, Libel and Slander, kk38 and 39. The majority takes the view that Albert is l......
-
Hopkins v. O'Connor
...it.... 3 Restatement [Second], [Torts] § 586, comment [c] [1977]." [Internal quotation marks omitted.]); see also Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Or. 383, 394, 347 P.2d 594 (1959) (Noting that "[t]he fact that the complaint made by the defendant to the grievance committee did not eventuate in a for......
-
Wallulis v. Dymowski
...when that Board is sitting in its quasi-judicial function as a licensing body, are absolutely privileged); Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Or. 383, 401, 347 P.2d 594 (1959) (absolute privilege attached to former client's statements to a State Bar committee concerning alleged attorney misconduct, be......