Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/gactapp/c1227390/southern-bell-telephone-telegraph-co-v-coastal-transmission-service
Timestamp: 2020-02-21 09:16:00
Document Index: 755898034

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 105', '§ 51', '§ 20', '§ 13', '§ 918', '§ 29', '§ 577', '§ 577', '§ 577']

Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Coastal Transmission Service, Inc., Georgia Court of Appeals, State Courts, COURT CASE
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Coastal Transmission Service, Inc. , 167 Ga. App. 611 ( 1983 )
167 Ga. App. 611 (1983) 307 S.E.2d 83
COASTAL TRANSMISSION SERVICE, INC. et al.
Decided July 14, 1983. Rehearing Denied July 28, 1983.
*612 b. As to appellee  Coastal, however, we hold differently. The limitation of liability clause at issue states: "THE TELEPHONE COMPANY'S LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF ERRORS IN OR OMISSIONS OF SUCH ADVERTISING SHALL IN NO EVENT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF CHARGES FOR THE ADVERTISING WHICH WAS OMITTED OR IN WHICH THE ERROR OCCURRED. . . AND SUCH LIABILITY SHALL BE DISCHARGED BY ABATEMENT OF THE CHARGES FOR THE PARTICULAR LISTING OR ADVERTISEMENT IN WHICH THE OMISSION OR ERROR OCCURRED." The publication of the offensive phrase, "get it in rear," was obviously caused by substitution of the letter "r" for the letter "g" in the word "gear."
a. Appellant contends that the published statement, "Get it in rear," is not libelous. As a general rule, the question of whether a particular publication is libelous is a question for the jury. Davis v. Macon Tel. Pub. Co., 93 Ga. App. 633, 634 (92 SE2d 619) (1956). If its meaning is not ambiguous and can reasonably have but one interpretation, the question is one of law for the judge (Ledger-Enquirer Co. v. Brown, 214 Ga. 422, 424 (105 SE2d 229) (1958)), but "the trial judge, reading and construing the publication as a whole, may find that it is not defamatory, that it is defamatory, or that it is ambiguous and the question is one for a jury." Ferguson v. Park Newspapers &c., 148 Ga. App. 848, 849 (253 SE2d 231) (1979). In the instant case the trial court submitted it to the jury for resolution. We find no fault with that decision as the question as to what effect would be produced upon the public by reading the words used by the publisher of an alleged libel, and the determination of *614 whether or not the tendency of the publication was to bring the plaintiff into hatred, contempt, or ridicule, is an issue of fact for the jury and not a matter of law to be determined by the court. Horton v. Georgian Co., 175 Ga. 261 (2) (165 S.E. 443) (1932). See generally, Pacific & Southern Co. v. Montgomery, 233 Ga. 175, 180 (210 SE2d 714) (1974).
We do not agree with appellant's assertion that Barrow and Coastal could not both claim defamation by the advertisement. One publication can libel more than one party, and each party libeled may bring an action. See Constitution Pub. Co. v. Leathers, 48 Ga. App. 429 (1), 433 (172 S.E. 923) (1933). Whether this one publication libeled both the owner  whose name was prominently stated in the ad  and the commercial enterprise, is an issue for the jury. Davis v. Macon Tel. Co., supra at 634 (3); Southland Pub. Co. v. Sewell, 111 Ga. App. 803, 807 (143 SE2d 428) (1965).
The injury sued for in this case is not merely the error in printing *615 the defamatory matter but the subsequent distribution of the publication  particularly the continuation of distribution after the error had been brought to the attention of local and regional Southern Bell officials. The initial distribution was made on February 5, 1981 and the local and regional officials were notified by Barrow on February 6. One official would not discuss the matter with Barrow as he was leaving for a two-week seminar and would speak to him when he returned. Another Southern Bell official's comment was that Barrow would just have to live with the error for one year. When Barrow could not get Southern Bell officials to take any immediate action he told them he would hire a lawyer to get something done. He was advised not to waste his money  they had never lost a case. Thus, Southern Bell officials were fully informed of their error on February 6 and continued to distribute the directories through February 19 and took no action to restrict or diminish the effect of the possible libel created by their action.
The Supreme Court has stated the basic rule quite clearly. "`It is axiomatic that a single act or course of conduct may constitute not *619 only a breach of contract but an independent tort as well, if in addition to violating a contract obligation it also violates a duty owed to plaintiff independent of contract to avoid harming him.'" Sheppard v. Yara Engineering Corp., 248 Ga. 147, 148 (281 SE2d 586); accord: Tapley v. Youmans, 95 Ga. App. 161 (1) (97 SE2d 365); E.&M. Constr. Co. v. Bob, 115 Ga. App. 127, 128 (153 SE2d 641); Rawls Bros. Co. v. Paul, 115 Ga. App. 731 (1) (155 SE2d 819); Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Stevens, 130 Ga. App. 363, 365 (203 SE2d 587); Long v. Jim Letts Olds., 135 Ga. App. 293 (2) (217 SE2d 602); Travelers Ins. Co. v. King, 160 Ga. App. 473, 475 (287 SE2d 381). It cannot be argued that each of us is not under a duty  independent of any contractual obligation, not to libel another. Code Ann. § 105-701 (now OCGA § 51-5-1). Hence, Southern Bell is guilty of a breach of its contractual duty as well as the independent tort of libel. Thus, the crucial divisive factor between the majority and myself is whether the limitation of liability clause which applied to the contractual breach also applies to the independent tort of libel. I find that it does not.
The reasoning behind their opinion is basic contract law. What was the intent of the parties in the limitation of liability clause in the printing contract? What type of negligence was contemplated by the *620 parties? Was it only to cover errors in omission or mistakes in the name or address? Or, did both parties intend to include a release from damages for any libelous publication? The majority finds: "We cannot say that this incident was not within the contemplation of the parties." I disagree. I cannot construe the limitation of liability agreement to cover or control an event that neither party anticipated nor intended to be covered  libel and commercial defamation. I cannot envision a business person consenting in a contract to be libeled, and his business to be commercially defamed, for the simple consideration that the libelous publication would not cost him anything. This result is reached by the majority opinion. From the wording of the agreement, it is clear that the only subject matter covered or contemplated was an omission to publish or an error in the name, number, or address of the subscriber.
I find that a portion of the majority opinion supports the verdict for Coastal Transmission, i.e. "The injury sued for in this case is not merely the error in printing the defamatory matter but the subsequent distribution of the publication  particularly the continuation of distribution after the error had been brought to the attention of local and regional Southern Bell officials." They also stated: ". . . in view of the exculpatory contractual provision he must show wilful or wanton conduct or conduct so charged with indifference to the consequences as to justify the jury finding a wantonness equivalent in spirit to actual intent to injure him in order for him to recover from Southern Bell in this case." Thus, conceding the initial error was caused by a negligent striking of an "r" for the "g" in the word "gear," the error was compounded by the failure to proof the original composition. Further, the error was exacerbated by the negligent printing, and negligent proofing, of the finished printed yellow pages. However, there was no negligence in the continued distribution of the libelous ad in the yellow pages directory after Southern Bell officials were notified on February 5 of the libelous ad, and they continued distribution of the libel through February 19. There was two complete weeks of knowing, intentional, deliberate distribution of a libelous publication with conscious indifference to the consequences to the libeled individual and Coastal Transmission. Hence, under the authority cited by the majority, even if the exculpatory clause applied there is sufficient evidence of "wilful or wanton conduct so charged with indifference to the consequences as to justify .. ." a finding for Coastal Transmission. The indifference of Southern Bell was shown when one official would not talk to Barrow because he was leaving for a two week seminar and another said he would just have to live with it for one year  and then continued with two additional weeks of distribution.
*621 In Georgia it is a recognized tenet of the law that the one who is injured by a breach of contract is bound to lessen his damages as far as practicable. Code Ann. § 20-1410 (now OCGA § 13-6-5). This rule also applies to torts. Restatement, Torts 2d § 918; see also 8 EGL 38, Damages, § 29. The plaintiff in the instant case did this by immediate notification of Southern Bell officials. If the party wronged is under an obligation to diminish damages, there is no just reason why the tortfeasor should not be under the same obligation to diminish damages caused by his wrongdoing. The majority opinion agrees. Restatement, Torts 2d, states: "One who intentionally and unreasonably fails to remove defamatory matter that he knows to be exhibited on land or chattels in his possession or under his control is subject to liability for its continued publication." Restatement, Torts 2d, § 577 (2) p. 201. And, "when, by measures not unduly difficult or onerous, he may easily remove the defamation, he may be found liable if he intentionally fails to remove it." Id. Comment on subsection (2) p. 208. In the instant case, Southern Bell officials were made aware of the libelous matter on February 5, and knowingly refused to mitigate damages already caused and which would be caused by continuing distribution. They wilfully chose to increase the damage already caused rather than delay distribution of the remainder of the directories for a few days while one or two persons could have obliterated the offensive matter with a rubber stamp. Such continued publication is a tort wholly apart from the original contract (Restatement, Torts 2d, § 577 (2)) and liability exists for such action  even if Southern Bell were not responsible for the original libel. Hellar v. Bianco, 111 Cal. App. 2d 424 (244 P2d 757); Tidmore v. Mills, 33 Ala. App. 243 (32 S2d 769); Restatement, Torts 2d, § 577 (2).
This court has held that "where the breach of contract is not also a tort, limitations of liability for breach will usually be given effect." (Emphasis supplied.) Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Stevens, 130 Ga. App. 363, 365, supra. Accordingly, I agree with Professors Corbin and Prosser, and the Orkin decision, that limitation of liability clause in a contract is not operative as to a tort arising from the same contract which is a violation of an independent duty not to libel another  particularly when the tortfeasor has full knowledge of the libelous matter within his possession and continues distribution of the libel with conscious indifference to any damage it could cause to the person or corporate entity defamed. I would affirm the judgment.
DocketNumber： 65684
Citation Numbers： 167 Ga. App. 611, 307 S.E.2d 83
Filed Date： 7/14/1983
Hellar v. Bianco , 111 Cal. App. 2d 424 ( 1952 )
E. & M. Construction Co., Inc. v. Bob , 115 Ga. App. 127 ( 1967 )
Ga.-Carolina Brick &C. Co. v. Brown , 153 Ga. App. 747 ( 1980 )
Travelers Ins. Co. v. King , 160 Ga. App. 473 ( 1981 )
Caskey v. Underwood , 89 Ga. App. 418 ( 1953 )
Lewis v. State , 158 Ga. App. 586 ( 1981 )
Baker v. State , 246 Ga. 317 ( 1980 )
Ferguson v. Park Newspapers of Georgia, Inc. , 148 Ga. App. 848 ( 1979 )
Orkin Ext. Co. v. Stevens , 130 Ga. App. 363 ( 1973 )
Pacific & Southern Co. v. Montgomery , 233 Ga. 175 ( 1974 )
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. C & S REALTY CO. , 141 Ga. App. 216 ( 1977 )
General Refractories Co. v. Rogers , 240 Ga. 228 ( 1977 )
Thomas J. Tacket v. General Motors Corporation , 836 F.2d 1042 ( 1987 )
Loring v. BELLSOUTH ADVERTISING &C. CORP. , 177 Ga. App. 307 ( 1985 )
Weathers v. Cowan , 176 Ga. App. 19 ( 1985 )
Estfan v. Poole , 193 Ga. App. 507 ( 1989 )
Indiana Const. Corp. v. Chicago Tribune Co. , 648 F. Supp. 1419 ( 1986 )
Doe v. America Online, Inc. , 783 So. 2d 1010 ( 2001 )
Christopher Boston v. Sandra Athearn ( 2014 )