Opinion ID: 589992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was ford's libel attributable to wayne?

Text: 42 We have determined that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that Ford had, with actual malice, libelled plaintiffs and that they were entitled to nominal damages against her regardless of proximate causation. The district court inquired of the jury whether defendant Ford was acting as an agent for Wayne at the time she libelled plaintiffs. In view of the jury's award of no damages for the Ford libel, it was not called upon to answer this question. The district court did instruct the jury that: 43 You may find the college liable for libel if the statement was made by Mrs. Ford while she was in discharge of her duties as agent of the college and in relation to a matter about which her duty as an agent permitted or required her to act, in the same way and to the same extent as Mrs. Ford could be held liable. 44 Wayne's attorney argued to the district court that our previous remand required the district Court to make a determination as a matter of law on the questions of agency and the employer relationship, conceding that when Ford issued the letter she was a member of the Wayne Board of Trustees and Secretary of the Board. The district court denied Wayne's motion for summary judgment in this regard and properly so, we believe, prior to trial. It made no express legal determination on the agency and employer relationship questions. 45 Wayne's appellate brief states that the jury instruction relating to its liability for libel, if any, was correct and based upon Poledna v. Bendix Aviation Corp., 360 Mich. 129, 103 N.W.2d 789 (1960). Wayne also implicitly recognizes that Sias holds that a separate entity may be liable for slanderous/libelous statements made by its employee. It argues that it may be held liable only if it was [sic] demonstrated in some way that the letter was an act of the college, but asserts that in respect to the letter, she was not doing something pursuant to Board mandate or authority. Plaintiffs conceded before the district court that Ford was not an employee of Wayne. 46 We conclude that on this issue we must again REMAND to the district court for a determination as to Wayne's liability, if any, along with co-defendant Ford, for libel. If liable for defamation/libel, the damages would be the same as to each defendant.