Thorson v. Albert Lea Publishing Company
| Citation | 251 N.W. 177,190 Minn. 200 |
| Decision Date | 24 November 1933 |
| Docket Number | 29,591 |
| Parties | GILBERT THORSON v. ALBERT LEA PUBLISHING COMPANY |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Action in the district court for Freeborn county to recover damages for libel. The case was tried before Norman E. Peterson Judge, and a jury. Plaintiff recovered a verdict of $250. Defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial. Affirmed.
Libel and slander -- damages -- not excessive.
Action to recover damages for libel. Plaintiff had a verdict for $250. The newspaper article stated that Gilbert Thorson residing at 314 Fourth street, had been arrested on a charge of having liquor in his possession for sale when he was caught with a supply of ten gallons. Plaintiff, who lived at that address, was not the Gilbert Thorson arrested. He was the only Gilbert Thorson in the county where the newspaper was published and circulated. For the reasons stated in the opinion it is held:
1. The verdict was not excessive.
Libel and slander -- damages -- mental anguish and suffering -- extent.
2. The allegations of the complaint sought damages for mental anguish and suffering. Such are elements of general damages. There were no allegations as to special damages. Testimony of plaintiff to the effect that he suffered mental anguish and that he believed the publication affected his family and friends was admissible. Evidence as to the actual suffering of his wife and daughter because of the humiliating treatment accorded them was inadmissible. Its admission, however, did not constitute prejudicial error.
Libel and slander -- immunity from damages -- retraction -- question for jury.
3. There was no evidence of actual malice or intentional wrongdoing, simply a mistake as to the facts. Immunity from damages is granted to a newspaper for a libelous publication if, after retraction, it is able to show that the publication was made in good faith under a mistake of facts. Belief in the truth of the publication does not necessarily constitute good faith; there must have been an absence of negligence. The question as to such absence of negligence was one of fact for the jury. Its conclusions thereon must stand.
Meighen, Knudson & Sturtz, for appellant.
Moonan & Moonan, for respondent.
This is a libel action in which plaintiff sought to recover $10,000. The jury returned a verdict in his favor for $250. Defendant appeals from an order denying its blended motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
Defendant is the publisher of a daily newspaper at Albert Lea in Freeborn county, Minnesota, known as the Evening Tribune. It consists of 14 pages, and in its issue of November 12, 1931, on page three thereof, appeared the following item:
The paper had a circulation of between 5,000 and 6,000 copies daily, except Sunday, chiefly in the city of Albert Lea and surrounding territory. The circulation was almost wholly by mail and carrier, very few copies being sold by news stands and on the streets. Plaintiff resided at the designated street address. There was no other Gilbert Thorson living in Albert Lea or in Freeborn county. Plaintiff had not committed the offense referred to. The man arrested was a Gilbert Thorson residing in another county, who later pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Plaintiff was a railroad freight house foreman and had lived in Albert Lea for 14 years at various street addresses. He was a respectable citizen and a member of a local church. He had a wife, a six-year old son, and an 11-year old daughter living with him. The latter attended the local schools. As an extra source of income his wife operated a small grocery for several years, but sold it and on January 1, 1931, the family moved to the 314 Fourth street address.
The news item was obtained and written by a young lady reporter who was also an assistant editor of the defendant. She was capable and experienced, having been with the paper for over seven years. She obtained her information, except the street address, from the sheriff, who stated to her that Gilbert Thorson had been arrested "in the south part of town" on the evening of November 10 and that he did not know him. The residence address of plaintiff was in the south part of town. The reporter, who did not know Thorson, examined three directories, one a city telephone directory, one gotten out by a local credit association, and the other a Polk & Company Freeborn county directory. The only Gilbert Thorson appearing in the directories was this plaintiff. The reporter did not call up anyone at the residence of plaintiff nor at the place of his employment. She did, however, attempt to get in touch with the sheriff in the afternoon but could not locate him in his office. She made no investigation of the records of the court. A complaint was filed in the justice court sometime on the day the article was published. The reporter believed the statements in the article were true; she did not bring it to the attention of the editor before its publication, giving as a reason therefor that he was busy, that it was a rush day and the hour for going to press was near at hand, and that in such a situation it was not unusual for her to publish proposed articles without first showing them to the editor. The editor lived five houses from the plaintiff, and before that time had lived less than four blocks away from him. Plaintiff and his wife testified that the editor knew them, had traded at their grocery store, and that in meeting plaintiff had called him by name. This was denied.
The same evening of the publication and within an hour after the same, defendant's editor and the reporter responsible for the article learned through plaintiff's wife that her husband was not the person arrested, and made immediate apology and explanation, coupled with a promise of correction in the newspaper. In the next evening's issue an apology and retraction was published, which the court instructed the jury constituted as a matter of law a full retraction within the terms of the statute. 2 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 9397. Whether that instruction, favorable as it was to defendant, was correct we need not here decide. The statute referred to reads:
* * *"
A written demand for a retraction was made four days after the libelous publication; no retraction was published after such demand. Defendant, in a most laudable and praiseworthy manner, attempted to correct the wrong that had been done. The trial court in its charge correctly stated:
"There is no evidence in this case of actual malice or intentional wrongdoing."
Defendant makes numerous assignments of error, most of which have to do with the admission of evidence duly objected to and certain instructions given by the court and refusals to give certain requested instructions.
1. The claim that a new trial should be granted because of excessive damages given under the influence of passion and prejudice is not sustainable. If plaintiff was...
To continue reading
Request your trial