Tyler v. Garris
| Decision Date | 05 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--609,72--609 |
| Citation | 292 So.2d 427 |
| Parties | Avery L. TYLER, Appellant, v. Thurston GARRIS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Burton E. Burdick of Burdick & Donahoe, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Robert J. O'Toole, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
The trial court directed a verdict during the course of a jury trial against the counter-claimant, Avery L. Tyler, in a libel suit against Thurston Garris. We reverse and remand with directions that the libel claimant be granted a new trial.
The libel counter claim had been earlier deemed to state a cause of action based on a letter written by Garris to the Miami Herald 1 which stated that Tyler had sold Garris a stolen boat and that Mr. Tyler operated an unscrupulous firm which had by reason of the transaction wrongfully deprived him of the sum of $750. There is no question from the proofs but that Garris wrote the letter, transmitted it to the Miami Herald and that same was duly published to various individuals.
We simply can not, from the trial colloquy, understand the basis for the trial court decision, that is to say its concept of the deficiencies in the proofs adduced. Neither, with respect, are we able to determine same from Garris' appellate presentation. The best we can glean from Garris' position is that Tyler failed to establish that the letter was communicated to Tyler. Clearly this is not a condition to a libel action as the only requirement is that the defamatory matter must have been communicated to some third person in order for same to be actionable. See Gelhaus v. Eastern Air Lines, 194 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1952); Fiore v. Rogero, 144 So.2d 99 (2d D.C.A. Fla.1962); 20 Fla.Jur. Libel and Slander §§ 45 and 50. It is further suggested that Tyler's case is based upon subsequent articles printed in Action Line in the Miami Herald. Our survey reveals that this is incorrect because the gravamen of the suit rests upon the transmittal of the letter, not the resulting articles. This is reflected when you consider that the Miami Herald was not made a defendant to this claim.
Without laboring the matter further and engaging in a strawman procedure, we simply opine that the libel case was sufficiently established to escape the fate of a directed verdict.
Appellant's Point 2 is without merit. Thus we affirm the directed verdict which found Tyler liable to Garris for damages in the sum of $750.00 on the main complaint.
We affirm in part and reverse in part and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
1 'Gentlemen:
'I am a daily reader of your column and admire the efficient manner in which your fine staff seems to make the impossible, possible for an average individual like myself. My own efforts to recover money rightfully due me, have been to no avail, so I am hoping you will see fit to give my problem your attention.
'On September 4, 1970, I purchased 16 foot Ski-boat from Mr. Tim Tyler, the owner of Ravenswood Marina, 4470 Ravenswood Road, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, for $750.00 cash, having given Mr. Tyler a $50.00 deposit the day before. Mr. Tyler said the craft was a 1970 DOZE and that he had acquired it from a Massachusetts owner. He gave me a bill of sale which indicated that he was the sole owner and that the boat was free of any liens or other encumbrances.
'Following this transaction, I went to the Broward County Court House, to the Boat Registrations Department and presented my bill of sale and applied for a Title and Florida Boat Registration. My bill of sale was mailed to Tallahassee and in turn I received a Certificate of Title and Florida Boat Registration papers and numbers for the boat. I then invested $1,578.00 in the purchase of a motor and a top for the boat.
'About two weeks later, Officer Charles Peterson, of the Ft. Lauderdale Harbor Patrol, while on a routine cruise of Middle River, observed the boat at my dock and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zimmerman v. Buttigieg
...be "communicated to a third person." Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Geddes , 960 So. 2d 830, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) ; Tyler v. Garris , 292 So. 2d 427, 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) ("the defamatory matter must have been communicated to some third person in order for same to be actionable."). For instance......
-
Owner's Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ott
...letter, unless it is proved that a third person read them." Prosser, Law of Torts § 113, at 766-67 (4th ed. 1971). Tyler v. Garris, 292 So.2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). See Maine v. Allstate Insurance Company, 240 So.2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). See also F. Harper & F. James, The Law of Torts ......
-
Buckner v. Lower Florida Keys Hospital Dist.
...to some third party in order to be actionable. Owner's Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ott, 402 So.2d 466 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Tyler v. Garris, 292 So.2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Fiore v. Rogero, 144 So.2d 99 (Fla.2d DCA 1962) (comments made to named reporters). The decision of Burnham v. State, 3......
-
American Ideal Management, Inc. v. Dale Village, Inc.
... ... Publication requires communication to one other than the person defamed. Tyler v ... Garris, 292 So.2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). In the instant case several persons testified by way of deposition that they had seen the ... ...