Smith v. Jones, No. 48736
| Decision Date | 27 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 48736 |
| Citation | 335 So.2d 896 |
| Parties | Mary Jean SMITH v. Ollie JONES and Janis White. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Q. Earl Webb, Meridian, for appellant.
Paul Abston, Meridian, for appellee.
Before INZER, SUGG and LEE, JJ.
SUGG, Justice, for the Court:
Plaintiff sued defendants for slander and a trial in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County resulted in a jury verdict for the defendants.
The evidence established that each of the defendants, in separate phone calls on different dates, made defamatory statements to the plaintiff. The issue is whether there was a publication of the defamatory statements.
Publication is an essential element of tort liability for slander. The communication of a defamatory utterance must be in the presence of one or more other parties who heard the utterance and understood it to be defamatory. Defamatory words spoken only to the plaintiff is not a publication that will support an action for slander. Kirk Jewelers v. Bynum, 222 Miss. 134, 75 So.2d 463 (1954). W. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts, § 113 at 766-67. Publication may be to any third person, including a member of the plaintiff's family. Id; 50 Am.Jur.2d Libel and Slander, § 166 at 668 (1970). There is no publication if the defendant spoke the words with the reasonable expectation that they would not be overheard by a third party:
There is no liability for publication which the defendant did not intend and could not reasonably anticipate, as in the case of words spoken with no reason to suppose that anyone but the plaintiff would overhear them . . .
W. Prosser, supra, § 113 at 774. Accord, Restatement of Torts § 577, comment N at 199 (1938); Annotation 92 A.L.R.2d 219, § 8 at 236-37 (1963); 53 C.J.S. Libel and Slander § 80 at 129, note 2 (1948); 50 Am.Jur.2d Libel and Slander, § 147 at 654, notes 9 and 10 (1970).
The test of publication is: Were the words spoken in such a tone or manner and under such circumstances that the defendants had a reasonable expectation that no one would hear the words except the plaintiff?
One of plaintiff's sons, Randy, eavesdropped on Mrs. White's phone call to plaintiff either by plaintiff's invitation or on his own initiative. Whatever prompted him to listen, it is clear that plaintiff knew that Randy was listening to the conversation. More importantly, it is equally clear that Janis White did not know that anyone other than plaintiff was listening to the conversation.
Both of plaintiff's sons, Randy and Ricky, eavesdropped on Mrs. Jones' telephone call to the plaintiff. Ricky listened to part of the conversation at the request of plaintiff. Ricky interrupted the conversation and called Mrs. Jones a liar. This was the first indication Mrs. Jones had that the conversation was being overheard by a third party. No defamatory statements were made by Mrs. Jones after she knew that her conversation with plaintiff was being overheard by another party.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garziano v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
...had a reasonable expectation that no one would hear the words" except those with a legitimate interest in the matter. Smith v. Jones, 335 So.2d 896, 897 (Miss.1976). The testimony in the record is equivocal and speculative on this point. Du Pont was aware that workers from Brown & Root were......
-
United States Axminster, Inc. v. Chamberlain, Civil Action No. 4:95cv332-D-B (N.D. Miss. 10/__/1997)
...Dispatch Publishing Co., 487 So. 2d 843, 845 (Miss. 1986)). Slander is a defamatory statement published by spoken words. Smith v. Jones, 335 So. 2d 896, 897 (Miss. 1976). Spoken words which are actionable irrespective of special harm are known as "slander per se." Baugh v. Baugh, 512 2d 128......
-
Franklin Corp. v. Tedford
...claims and does not result in a miscarriage of justice. See Smith v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 819 So.2d 1258, 1261 (Miss.2002); Smith v. Jones, 335 So.2d 896, 897 (Miss.1976). In short, "[t]he conflict in the evidence made the jury the judges of what the truth was with reference thereto, and we a......
-
B&B Unlimited, Inc. v. Beecroft (In re Beecroft)
...must be made to or in the presence of a third party who is able to receive and understand the communication. See Smith v. Jones, 335 So.2d 896, 897 (Miss. 1976). The Defendant "published" the statement to the Rays when he executed the Second Bill of Sale for the property and delivered it to......