Opinion ID: 900097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: common interest

Text: [¶ 26] The defense of common interest privilege, SDCL 20-11-5(3), often becomes a question in libel actions and occurs in this case. The existence of the privilege is a question for the Court and therefore is freely reviewable. Peterson v. City of Mitchell, 499 N.W.2d at 915. [¶ 27] In determining if a published communication is a matter of common interest, the trial judge must determine if the communication is made to an interested person by an interested person or by a person who stands in relation to the interested person. SDCL 20-11-5(3). The inquiry is to ask whether, if true, it is a matter of proper public interest in relation to that with which it is sought to associate it. Peterson v. City of Mitchell, 499 N.W.2d at 915 (quoting McLean v. Merriman, 42 S.D. 394, 399, 175 N.W. 878, 880 (1920)). We have recently quoted, with approval, the Restatement (Second) of Torts: An occasion makes a publication conditionally privileged if the circumstances lead any one of several persons having a common interest in a particular subject matter correctly or reasonably to believe that there is information that another sharing the common interest is entitled to know. Tibke, 479 N.W.2d at 905 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 596).