Walter v. Davidson
| Decision Date | 04 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 20028,20028 |
| Parties | James E. WALTER v. Zenith DAVIDSON, by Next Friend. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where a plaintiff testified that alleged slanderous statements were made by the defendant to the plaintiff while a third person was present, and the third person testifies positively that he did not hear it, in the absence of evidence that the statements were spoken audibly and loud enough to have been heard by the third person, a verdict that the statements were not heard is demanded by the evidence.
2. Where the uncontradicted evidence shows that the alleged slanderous statements upon which the suit is based were spoken by the defendant while serving as President of Piedmont College to the plaintiff, a student of that college, about students stealing in the dormitory, in the presence of Dr. Scott, who was a member of the faculty of the college with duties including that of maintaining good order among the students, even if Dr. Scott heard the statements it was not publication as contemplated by law. Accordingly, a verdict in favor of the defendant was demanded.
This case is here by grant of the application for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals in case No. 36951, Davidson v. Walter, 97 Ga.App. 118, 102 S.E.2d 686, which was the second appearance of that case, the first appearance being reported in Davidson v. Walter, 93 Ga.App. 290, 91 S.E. 520. On the last appearance the Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge in directing the verdict for the defendant, holding that the testimony did not demand a verdict in favor of the defendant.
The applicant assigned error upon the judgment and opinion of the Court of Appeals, in substance, that the testimony of the plaintiff and that of the defendant and his witness as to whether or not the alleged slanderous words were spoken or heard were in direct conflict, thus presenting a question of fact for jury determination; and that the law of the case established that the statements alleged to be slanderous were not absolutely privileged, and the testimony was conflicting both on the issue of publication and the issue of malice, presenting a jury question, and the court erred in directing the verdict in favor of the defendant. The alleged error was that the denial by the third party that he had heard the alleged slanderous words shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiff to show that they were heard an, if made, as claimed, they were a part of a privileged communication, and the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove actual or express malice, which she failed to do, and the verdict in favor of the defendant was demanded.
The case presented by the evidence amounts to whether or not the alleged slanderous words, if spoken, in the presence of the plaintiff by the defendant, the president of the college, and in the presence of Dr. Benjamin Scott, another faculty member charged with investigating certain thefts on the campus, and made during an inverstigation of a particular theft, were heard by Dr. Scott, thus amounting to publication within contemplation of law. The alleged words or statements were allegedly made by the defendant, Dr. Walter, President of Piedmont College, during an investigation conducted by Dr. Scott into a theft occurring in a girls' dormitory. The plaintiff testified that Dr. Walter made the statements in the presence of Dr. Scott. Dr. Walter testified that he did not make such statements, and Dr. Scott testified that Dr. Walter did not make such statements and that he did not hear any such statements.
Kimzey & Crawford, Cornelia, for plaintiff in error.
Irwin R. Kimzey, Clarkesville, Kimzey & Kimzey, Herbert B. Kimzey, Cornelia, Stow & Andrews, Robert E. Andrews, Gainesville, for defendant in error.
1. The public gravity of this case is readily obvious when it is seen that the right of members of the faculty of a college, who are entrusted with the supervision, regulation and training of boys and girls, to speak freely with each other in the performance of those duties is involved. No one, and certainly no parent of those students would wish that the faculty abdicate or even half-heartedly perform their duties in this respect. It would be nonsense to require them to maintain discipline and moral conduct, and at the same time deny them the right to freely confer with each other revealing facts, circumstances, and suspicions of wrongdoing by any student. Would it be tolerable to deny the president the right to say anything touching student conduct, including his suspicions, even if upon investigation found groundless, of wrongdoing by any student, to any member of the faculty whose duties include maintenance of order and good conduct by the students? If they are not allowed to talk, then will the law deny them the right to punish, such as campus confinement, overtime study or other similar punishment on the idea that such is imprisonment or involuntary servitude? This case can not be justly decided if the fact that it involves the relationship, standards and duties of a college faculty and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nida v. Echols
...the equivalent of "speaking to one's self." Kurtz v. Williams, 188 Ga. App. 14, 15, 371 S.E.2d 878 (1988), quoting Walter v. Davidson, 214 Ga. 187, 190, 104 S.E.2d 113 (1958). Thus, if plaintiffs cannot support their claim that defendants published the allegedly libelous and/or slanderous c......
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Busbin
...as the record was expanded on retrial to include the circumstances upon which our holding in Division 1 is based. Walter v. Davidson, 214 Ga. 187(2), 104 S.E.2d 113 (1958); Fuller v. Fuller, 213 Ga. 103, 104, 97 S.E.2d 306 (1957); Christian v. Allstate Ins. Co., 152 Ga.App. 358(1), 262 S.E.......
-
Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea Co. v. Paul
...Carter, 100 R.I. 259, 214 A.2d 197 (1965); Tobias v. Sumter Telephone Co., 166 S.C. 161, 164 S.E. 446 (1932). Accord, Walter v. Davidson, 214 Ga. 187, 104 S.E.2d 113 (1958) (when third person testified he did not hear remarks, evidence was insufficient to take case to jury in absence of reb......
-
Carter v. Willowrun Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 72072
...associations. See generally Monahan v. Sims, supra; Neal v. McCall, 134 Ga.App. 680, 682(4), 215 S.E.2d 537 (1975); Walter v. Davidson, 214 Ga. 187, 104 S.E.2d 113 (1958). In Sigmon v. Womack, 158 Ga.App. 47, 49, 279 S.E.2d 254 (1981) and LuAllen v. Home Mission Bd., 125 Ga.App. 456, 459-46......