Court Opinion

ID: 9687493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:32:19.685234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:28.185206
License: Public Domain

BLOODWORTH, Justice
(dissenting).
I must dissent since I concurred in that portion of Justice McCall’s opinion for this Court in O’Barr v. Feist, 292 Ala, 440, 296 So.2d 152 (1974) in which he wrote that one who testifies in a judicial proceeding enjoys absolute privilege. I continue to adhere to that view — which is the general rule in this country. See authorities at 292 Ala. 446, 296 So.2d 157.
It is my judgment that the policy of the law should continue to be that no one who testifies in a judicial proceeding shall be subject to civil suit for damages on account of testimony he gave under any theory of law. To hold otherwise, as the majority does in allowing suit for conspiracy, permits the doing indirectly of that which could not be done directly and thus subverts the policy of the law — which is that all should be privileged to testify without the threat of civil action on account thereof.
MERRILL and MADDOX, JJ., concur.