Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/minn/c1977295/wild-v-rarig
Timestamp: 2020-02-26 18:34:51
Document Index: 106166675

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 256', '§ 328', '§ 189', '§ 154', '§ 390', '§ 156', '§ 899', '§ 154', '§ 189', '§ 899', '§ 205', '§ 146', '§ 5609', '§ 206', '§ 148', '§ 206', '§ 129', '§ 40', '§ 9637', '§ 6', '§ 129', '§ 6', '§ 50', '§ 26', '§ 129']

Wild v. Rarig, Minnesota Supreme Court, State Courts, COURT CASE
John J. WILD, M. D., Respondent,
Frank M. RARIG, et al., Appellants.
January 10, 1975. Rehearing Denied July 31, 1975.
On July 23, 1962, Grant GM 10063-01 (the grant) was issued by the Public Health Service to Minnesota Foundation as the grantee institution and Dr. Wild as principal investigator. The notification and statement of grant award stated that the initial grant was for $147,205 for the period August 1, 1962, to July 31, 1963, and provided future support, if funds were appropriated, for 3 additional years. Minnesota Foundation was to handle the grant money and receive 10 percent, or $14,000, as indirect costs for administering the grant. The notification referred the reader for further information on specific details applicable to general policies on research grants to a booklet entitled "Grant and Award Programs of the Public Health Service, Volume IPolicy and Information Statement on Research Grants1959." This manual was *784 subsequently supplemented by a pamphlet entitled "Supplement to Policy and Information Statement on Research Grants (Volume I) Pertaining to Research Program-Project Grants and Research Center Grants."
A few days after the project officially began, August 1, 1962, Dr. Wild hired two people for the project staff. Rarig wrote a letter admonishing Dr. Wild for not having sought prior approval of the advisory committee or Minnesota Foundation. This early incident probably best illustrates the basic conflict which was to plague the research endeavor throughout its existencewhether Dr. Wild or Minnesota Foundation was in control of the project. The situation gradually deteriorated in the early spring of 1963 into frequent confrontations between Dr. Wild and Minnesota Foundation, represented by Rarig, over salaries of the staff, hiring and firing of personnel, purchases of equipment, working hours, vacation time, accounting procedures, expense accounts, staff dissension, and the advisory committee's role and Rarig's function on the project.
On December 29, 1963, Dr. Wild alleged he had made a scientific breakthrough in his cancer projectan electronic meter which would instantaneously register the difference between normal and abnormal tissues and thus make unnecessary hand calculations which until then had been required and could take hours. On December 31, 1963, the day the project ended, Dr. Wild gave a demonstration of his breakthrough and issued a prepared press release to the media. After a phone conversation with Rarig, Dr. Tuve of the Public Health Service wrote a memorandum to the record which quoted Rarig as stating that various people had concluded that Dr. Wild's breakthrough was "faked." Rarig also denied making this statement. Dr. Wild has indicated he did not receive a copy of this document or of the memorandum prepared by Dr. Tuve and Mr. Haje until shortly before this trial.
The matter of granting a new trial for misconduct of counsel or prevailing party is governed by no fixed rules but rests almost wholly in the discretion of the trial court and its action will not be reversed on appeal except for a clear abuse of discretion. Brecht v. Town of Bergen, 182 Minn. 603, 235 N.W. 528 (1931). If the trial court instructed the jury to disregard the improper remarks or arguments, a new trial *786 will rarely be granted by this court. See, Hinman v. Gould, 205 Minn. 377, 286 N.W. 364 (1939). The primary consideration in determining whether to grant a new trial is prejudice. Boland v. Morrill, 270 Minn. 86, 132 N.W.2d 711 (1965). The general rules are well set out in Patton v. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 247 Minn. 368, 375, 77 N.W.2d 433, 438, 58 A.L.R. 2d 921, 929 (1956), where this court stated:
On July 23, 1962, the Public Health Service sent a "NOTIFICATION AND STATEMENT *788 OF GRANT AWARD," setting forth the Public Health Service's policy requirements for the awards. On the reverse side of the notification is an "EXPLANATION OF STATEMENT OF RESEARCH GRANTRevised July 1, 1961," which provides:
"*REFERENCE: For further information on specific details applicable to general policies on Research Grants, see `Grant and Award Programs of the Public Health Service, Volume IPolicy and Information Statement on Research Grants1959.'"
Some courts have held that there is an implied condition of good faith in all contracts, whether sales contracts or not. 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, § 256; 17A C.J.S., Contracts, § 328. Minnesota statutory law, in the Uniform Commercial Code, provides for an implied condition of good faith in sales contracts. Minn.St. 336.1-201(19), 336.1-203, 336.2-103(1)(b). This court has read an implied condition of good faith into a nonsales contract containing reciprocal duties and obligations on the part of the contracting parties where one of the parties made it impossible for the other to perform. Haase v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 257 Minn. 7, 99 N.W.2d 898, 87 A.L.R. 2d 726 (1959). Whether this court will read such a condition of good faith into all contracts has not yet been decided.
"(1) For libel, slander, assault, battery, false imprisonment, or other tort, resulting in personal injury, and all actions against physicians, * * * for malpractice, * * * whether based on contract or tort; * * *."
*792 In Ackerman v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 70 Minn. 35, 72 N.W. 1134 (1897), and in Ott v. G. N. Ry. Co., 70 Minn. 50, 72 N.W. 833 (1897), this court heard further arguments on what the 1895 amendment was intended to do and reaffirmed Brown v. Village of Heron Lake, supra. This court reiterated that an action for negligent personal injury was within the 6-year statute of limitations. Rejecting the argument that a negligently inflicted injury was a battery and therefore was covered by the 2-year statute, we held that battery as used therein included "an intentionally administered injury to the personsuch an injury as could be made the basis of a criminal prosecution, and not that which resulted from the want of due care." Ott v. G. N. Ry. Co., 70 Minn. 50, 54, 72 N.W. 833, 834 (1897).
"* * * It has been held that the action for malicious prosecution of a criminal charge is within this class [2-year limitation]. Bryant v. American Surety Co., 69 Minn. 30, 71 N.W. 826.
"At first blush it might seem that malicious prosecution of a civil suit should be within the same class, but clearly it is not. The Bryant case was decided on the ground that the malicious prosecution of a criminal action is a personal wrong of the class that dies with the person, and is accordingly of the same class as libel, slander, and false imprisonment. The malicious prosecution of a civil action, on the other hand, is in no sense an injury to the person. We regard this as settled by the decision of this court in Hansen Mercantile Co. v. Wyman, Partridge & Co., 105 Minn. 491, 117 N.W. 926, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 727. In that case it was held that an action for maliciously procuring and levying an attachment was an action for an injury not to the person, but to property; that a cause of action for injuries resulting from the attachment, consisting of the destruction of the business and of the credit, reputation and standing of the defendant, and the driving away of customers, was not a personal tort, but a property tort, and that it was assignable. True, there was in that case a seizure of property, but that does not change the principle. * * * In either case, the injury is one to business and property and not to the person. It follows that the claim for malicious prosecution was not barred." 123 Minn. 37, 142 N.W. 938.[18]
At common law, there was a split over whether interference with business relations survived. Pro: Sullivan v. Associated Billposters and Distributors, 6 F.2d 1000, 42 A.L.R. 503 (2 Cir. 1925); Bethlehem Fabricators, Inc. v. H. D. Watts Co., 286 Mass. 556, 190 N.E. 828, 93 A.L.R. 1124 (1934). Contra: Caillouet v. American Sugar Refining Co., 250 F. 639 (E.D.La.1917); Jones v. Matson, 4 Wash.2d 659, 104 P.2d 591 (1940). The better reasoned cases appear to be the former, which hold the tort claim survivable and assignable because it resembles a property or a contract claim. Similarly, wrongful interference with business relationships is not usually the basis of a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, we think that wrongful interference with business relationships is generally included in Minn.St. 541.05, the 6-year statute of limitations.
The commentators and courts that have faced the issue have generally found that a cause of action accrues when the defamatory matter is published to a third party. They have found that when the matter is not defamatory per se, a cause of action accrues only when special damage is suffered. Gatley, Libel and Slander (4 ed.) c. 19, p. 382; 1 Seelman, The Law of Libel and Slander in the State of New York, § 189a, p. 231; 1 Hanson, Libel and Related Torts, § 154, p. 119; 50 Am.Jur.2d, Libel and Slander, § 390; 53 C.J.S. Libel and Slander § 156; Restatement, Torts, § 899, Comment c; Miles v. McGrath, 4 F. Supp. 603, 604 (D.Md.1933); Brown v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 212 F. Supp. 832, 834 (W.D. Mo.1963), affirmed, 323 F.2d 420 (8 Cir. 1963); Hartmann v. Time, Inc., 64 F. Supp. 671, 678 (E.D.Pa.1946), modified, 166 F.2d 127, 135, 1 A.L.R. 2d 370 (3 Cir. 1947, 1948), certiorari denied, 334 U.S. 838, 68 S. Ct. 1495, 92 L. Ed. 1763 (1948); Gregoire v. G. P. Putnam's Sons, 298 N.Y. 119, 81 N.E.2d 45 (1945). See, also, Annotations, 1 A.L.R. 2d 884, 42 A.L.R. 3d 807.
Ignorance or lack of knowledge of a defamatory publication will not toll the statute of limitations. Irvin v. Bentley, 18 Ga.App. 662, 90 S.E. 359 (1916); Kern v. Hettinger, 303 F.2d 333, 338 (2 Cir. 1962); Grist v. Upjohn Co., 1 Mich.App. 72, 134 N.W.2d 358 (1965); Forman v. Mississippi Publishers Corp., 195 Miss. 90, 107, 14 So. 2d 344, 347, 148 A.L.R. 469, 473 (1943); Brown v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 212 F. Supp. 832, 835 (W.D.Mo.1963), affirmed, 323 F.2d 420 (8 Cir. 1963); Hartmann v. Time, Inc., 64 F. Supp. 671, 678 (E.D.Pa.1946), modified, 166 F.2d 127, 1 A.L.R. 2d 370 (3 Cir. 1947, 1948), certiorari denied, 334 U.S. 838, 68 S. Ct. 1495, 92 L. Ed. 1763 (1948); 1 Hanson, Libel and Related Torts, § 154; 1 Seelman, The Law of Libel and Slander in the State of New York, § 189a, p. 231; Restatement, Torts, § 899, Comment e. See, also, 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 205; 51 Am. Jur.2d, Limitation of Actions, § 146; 11A Dunnell, Dig. (3d ed.) § 5609, for the general rule that ignorance or lack of knowledge of the existence of a cause of action will not toll the statute of limitations for most claims.[21]
There is no categorical definition of what constitutes fraudulent concealment. 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 206f. One text states that
"* * * the concealment must be fraudulent or intentional and, in the absence of a fiduciary or confidential relationship, there must be something of an affirmative nature designed to prevent, and which does prevent, discovery of the cause of action. * * *
"Although mere silence or failure to disclose may not in itself constitute fraudulent concealment, any statement, word, or act which tends to the suppression of the truth renders the concealment fraudulent." 51 Am.Jur.2d, Limitation of Actions, § 148.
"* * * It is not necessary that a party should know the details of the evidence by which to establish his cause of action; it is enough that he knows that a cause of action exists in his favor, and when he has this knowledge it is his own fault if he does not avail himself of those means which the law provides for prosecuting or preserving his claim." 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions § 206e.
[16] The jury returned a verdict of $2,000,000 compensatory damages and $5,000,000 punitive damages for interference with contract and professional business relationships. Wrongful interference with contract and wrongful interference with business relationships, also known as interference with contractual relations and interference with prospective advantage, Prosser, Torts (4 ed.) §§ 129, 130, are actionable tort claims in Minnesota. Witte Transp. Co. v. Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc., 291 Minn. 461, 193 N.W.2d 148 (1971); Snowden v. Sorensen, 246 Minn. 526, 75 N.W.2d 795 (1956); Sorenson v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 171 Minn. 260, 214 N.W. 754, 84 A.L.R. 35 (1927); Carnes v. St. Paul Union Stockyards Co., 164 Minn. 457, 205 N.W. 630, 206 N.W. 396 (1925); Tuttle v. Buck, 107 Minn. 145, 119 N.W. 946 (1909). See, also, American Surety Co. v. Schottenbauer, 257 F.2d 6 (8 Cir. 1958). See, generally, 86 C.J.S. Torts §§ 40, 44, 54 to 59; 45 Am.Jur.2d, Interference; 19A Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 9637; 1 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, §§ 6.5 to 6.13. Wrongful interference with contract protects an interest in the security of contractual relationships, Prosser, Torts (4 ed.) § 129; 1 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, § 6.5, and wrongful interference with business relationships protects an interest in the reasonable expectation of economic advantage. 45 Am.Jur.2d, Interference, § 50. However, under the facts of this case, Dr. Wild does not have a cause of action for wrongful interference with contract since that action does not permit one party to sue another party to the same contract for breaches inter se. Cuker Industries, Inc. v. William L. Crow Constr. Co., 6 A.D.2d 415, 178 N.Y. S.2d 777 (1958); Glazer v. Chandler, 414 Pa. 304, 200 A.2d 416 (1964); 45 Am.Jur.2d, Interference, § 26; Prosser, Torts (4 ed.) § 129, p. 934, footnote 9. Dr. Wild alleges two contracts, but in each of the alleged contracts he and Minnesota Foundation are contracting parties.
[21] While existing law in most jurisdictions generally holds that the statute of limitations on defamation starts to run on publication, and, further, that lack of knowledge on the part of the one defamed will not toll the statute, as indicated in the text, it has been suggested that an exception should be carved out of the general rule in the case of a so-called "private libel" such as an interoffice memorandum, intercompany correspondence, private letters, or correspondence between business or research entities and a governmental unit relative to mutual concerns. In these latter cases, where the defamed person isunaware of the defamation because of the limited extent of publicationas contrasted to a "public defamation" in the press, on the air, or from a public plplatformhe may, nevertheless, be seriouslydamaged, and a strong argument can be made that the statute should not commence to run until the defamed person knows of the publication of the defamatory material,or in the exercise of reasonable care, should know of the existence of the same. This test, of course, is somewhat analogousto the "discovery rule" in medical malpractice cases which so far Minnesota has declined to adopt. Schmucking v. Mayo, 183 Minn. 37, 235 N.W. 633 (1931); Johnson v. Winthrop Laboratories Division of Sterling Drug, Inc., 291 Minn. 145, 190 N.W.2d 77 (1971). Nevertheless, in order that the question in the case of a "private libel" might be preserved for future consideration, the trial court assigned to try the case on remand may wish to submit an interrogatory which asks the jury to determine when Dr. Wild knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the particular alleged defamatory matter in question.
DocketNumber： 44238
Citation Numbers： 234 N.W.2d 775
F. L. Brown v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad ... , 323 F.2d 420 ( 1963 )
Staples v. Zoph , 9 Cal. App. 2d 369 ( 1935 )
Snowden v. Sorensen , 246 Minn. 526 ( 1956 )
Glazer v. Chandler , 414 Pa. 304 ( 1964 )
Sullivan v. Associated Billposters and Distributors , 6 F.2d 1000 ( 1925 )
Grist v. the Upjohn Company , 1 Mich. App. 72 ( 1965 )
Cederstrand v. Brotherhood , 263 Minn. 520 ( 1962 )
Boland v. Morrill , 132 N.W.2d 711 ( 1965 )
State v. Johnson , 184 N.W.2d 660 ( 1971 )
Lindbery v. JA Danens & Son, Inc. , 266 Minn. 420 ( 1963 )
Price v. Grieger , 244 Minn. 466 ( 1955 )
State v. Dahlgren , 259 Minn. 307 ( 1961 )
Witte Transp. Co. v. Murphy Motor Freight Lines, Inc. , 193 N.W.2d 148 ( 1971 )
john-julian-wild-md-phd-v-st-paul-companies-inc-a-corporation , 612 F.2d 341 ( 1979 )
minnesota-timber-producers-associations-inc-v-american-mutual-insurance , 766 F.2d 1261 ( 1985 )
international-travel-arrangers-a-corporation-v-nwa-inc-northwest , 991 F.2d 1389 ( 1993 )
donald-e-collins-and-financial-placements-inc-a-missouri-corporation-v , 3 F.3d 238 ( 1993 )
Medtronic, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Convacare, Inc.... , 17 F.3d 252 ( 1994 )
Marvin Klehr and Mary Klehr William G. Olson, Intervenor v. ... , 87 F.3d 231 ( 1996 )
Northwest Airlines, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation v. ... , 111 F.3d 1386 ( 1997 )
Michael Bunker v. Kenneth Meshbesher Meshbesher & Spence, ... , 147 F.3d 691 ( 1998 )
Northwest Airlines, Inc., Plaintiff-Counterclaim v. Antonio ... , 296 F.3d 787 ( 2002 )
Joseph H. Whitney v. The Guys, Inc. ( 2012 )
Carl Lee Eller v. NFL Players Association ( 2013 )
In Re Silicone Implant Ins. Coverage Lit. , 652 N.W.2d 46 ( 2002 )
Hay v. Dahle , 386 N.W.2d 808 ( 1986 )