Richmond v. Nodland
Decision Date | 24 July 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 960104,960104 |
Citation | 552 N.W.2d 586 |
Parties | Donald RICHMOND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Irvin NODLAND and Amanda Broer, Defendants and Appellees. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Donald Richmond, Bismarck, pro se.
Steven A. Storslee, Curtis L. Wike, Fleck, Mather & Strutz, Bismarck, for defendants and appellees. Argued by Curtis L. Wike.
Donald Richmond appealed from the district court's summary judgment dismissing his complaint for slander per se, the tort of outrage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendants, Irvin Nodland and Amanda Broer. We conclude that Nodland's and Broer's statements to the police were protected by qualified privilege and that Richmond did not offer evidence of malice. We affirm the district court's dismissal.
On September 14, 1993, Broer, a house-guest at Nodland's home, was babysitting Nodland's child when she saw a prowler in the backyard. She called Nodland at the restaurant where he was dining with his wife and told him about the prowler. Nodland alerted the Bismarck Police Department and went directly home.
By the time Nodland arrived home, the police were there investigating. Broer described the prowler as an older man with graying hair, wearing a light-colored t-shirt and jeans. Sometime during the investigation, the police were given Richmond's name as a possible suspect. 1 The police went to Richmond's home to investigate and determined that Richmond was not the prowler.
Summary judgment under Rule 56, N.D.R. Civ. P., is appropriate if, after "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence, there is no genuine dispute as to either the material facts or the inferences to be drawn from undisputed facts, or if only a question of law is involved." Rued Ins. v. Blackburn, Nickels & Smith, 543 N.W.2d 770, 773 (N.D.1996); American State Bank v. Sorenson, 539 N.W.2d 59 (N.D.1995). Even when a factual dispute exists, if the law is such that the resolution of the factual dispute will not alter the result, the disputed facts are not material, and summary judgment is proper. Knight v. North Dakota State Indus. Sch., 540 N.W.2d 387 (N.D.1995). When considering summary judgment, the court may examine the pleadings, depositions, admissions, affidavits, interrogatories, and inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Kary v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 541 N.W.2d 703 (N.D.1996).
Richmond asserted that Nodland and Broer defamed him by providing his name to the police during the investigation of the prowling incident. See NDCC § 14-02-04 ( ). In dismissing Richmond's claims for defamation and emotional distress, the trial court concluded the communications were privileged, thus barring civil liability. We agree.
The Legislature has made some communications privileged. NDCC § 14-02-05. There is no liability for defamatory statements that are privileged. Rykowsky v. Dickinson Pub. Sch. Dist. 1, 508 N.W.2d 348 (N.D.1993); Soentgen v. Quain & Ramstad Clinic, P.C., 467 N.W.2d 73 (N.D.1991). " 'Privilege is based upon the sound public policy that some communications are so socially important that the full and unrestricted exchange of information requires some latitude for mistake.' " Rykowsky, 508 N.W.2d at 351 (quoting Soentgen, 467 N.W.2d at 78). We have recognized that privilege is either absolute or qualified. A privilege is absolute when the free exchange of information is so important that even evidence of actual malice does not destroy the privilege. See NDCC §§ 14-02-05(1) [ ]; 14-02-05(2) [communication made in "any legislative or judicial proceeding, or in any other proceeding authorized by law"]; Soentgen, 467 N.W.2d at 78; Emo v. Milbank Mutual Ins. Co., 183 N.W.2d 508 (N.D.1971); Farmers Educational & Coop. Union v. WDAY, Inc., 89 N.W.2d 102 (N.D.1958). A qualified privilege, on the other hand, "may be abused and does not provide absolute immunity from liability for defamation." Soentgen, 467 N.W.2d at 78; see NDCC § 14-02-05(3), (4). Whether privilege applies is a question of law for the courts. Soentgen, 467 N.W.2d at 78.
Nodland and Broer urge that under section 14-02-05(2), NDCC, their statements to the police were absolutely privileged as statements made during a "proceeding." Other jurisdictions have held that certain communications to law enforcement are absolutely privileged. See, e.g., Williams v. Taylor, 129 Cal.App.3d 745, 181 Cal.Rptr. 423, 428 (1982) [ ]; Layne v. Builders Plumbing Supply Co., 210 Ill.App.3d 966, 155 Ill.Dec. 493, 569 N.E.2d 1104 (1991) [ ]; Correllas v. Viveiros, 410 Mass. 314, 572 N.E.2d 7, 13 (1991) [ ]; see also W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 114, at 819-20 (5th ed.1984) [ ]. We do not need to decide the absolute privilege issue, however, because the allegedly defamatory communications are at least qualifiedly privileged. See City of Fargo v. Ness, 529 N.W.2d 572, 577 (N.D.1995) [ ].
Section 14-02-05(3), provides a privilege for a communication made:
"without malice, to a person interested therein by one who also is interested, or by one who stands in such relation to the person interested as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication innocent, or who is requested by the person interested to give the information[.]"
See Emo, 183 N.W.2d at 514 [ ]. Thus, in considering whether a defamatory statement is qualifiedly privileged, we undertake a two-step analysis: first, we determine whether "the attending circumstances of a communication occasion a qualified privilege," and if so, we determine whether the privilege was abused. Soentgen, 467 N.W.2d at 78.
In deciding whether Nodland's and Broer's statements to the police were an occasion of qualified privilege, we are persuaded that important public policy supports recognizing a qualified privilege for communications between citizens and law enforcement. In order for an investigation to be effective, there must be an open channel of communication between citizens and public officials. The channel would "quickly close if its use subjected the user to a risk of liability" for defamation. Williams, 181 Cal.Rptr. at 428. See Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65 (Fla.1992) [ ]; Brown v. P.N. Hirsch & Co. Stores, Inc., 661 S.W.2d 587 (Mo.App.1983) [ ]; see generally 50 Am.Jur.2d Libel and Slander § 293 (1995) [ ]; Annotation, Libel and Slander: Privilege Regarding Communications to Police or Other Officer Respecting Commission of Crime, 140 A.L.R. 1466, 1471 (1942) [ ].
We agree with the observations of the Florida Supreme Court:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Forster v. West Dakota Veterinary Clinic
...§ 14-02-05(3) and (4) is not absolutely privileged, but is qualifiedly privileged, and the privilege may be abused. Richmond v. Nodland, 552 N.W.2d 586, 588 (N.D.1996). A "qualified privileged communication is usually a good-faith communication wherein the author of the communication has an......
-
Krile v. Lawyer
...are so socially important that the full and unrestricted exchange of information requires some latitude for mistake." Richmond v. Nodland , 552 N.W.2d 586, 588 (N.D. 1996) (quoting Rykowsky v. Dickinson Pub. Sch. Dist. 1 , 508 N.W.2d 348, 351 (N.D. 1993) ). "There is no liability for defama......
-
Nelson v. Gillette
...and the only remaining question is one of law. See NDRCivP 56(c); P.E. v. W.C., 552 N.W.2d 375, 380 (N.D.1996); Richmond v. Nodland, 552 N.W.2d 586, 588 (N.D.1996). As we explained in Opp v. Matzke, 1997 ND 32, p 6, 559 N.W.2d 837, after review of the evidence in the light most favorable to......
-
Krile v. Lawyer
...is no liability for defamatory statements that are privileged." Krile , 2020 ND 176, ¶ 18, 947 N.W.2d 366 (quoting Richmond v. Nodland , 552 N.W.2d 586, 588 (N.D. 1996) ). A privileged communication may be either absolute or qualified. Krile , at ¶ 19. There is no liability for a defamatory......
-
REPORTING SEXUAL ASSAULT: WHAT PRIVILEGES SHOULD EXIST IN DEFAMATION SUITS STEMMING FROM A POLICE REPORT?
...to the filing of criminal charges against plaintiff for the murder of his father were absolutely privileged). (82.) Richmond v. Nodland, 552 N.W.2d 586, 589 (N.D. 1996) (holding a qualified privilege was sufficiently protective where the defendant reported and named a potential "prowler" to......