Court Opinion

ID: 9794348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:04:23.907835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:14:43.450536
License: Public Domain

Hunter, J.
(dissenting) — The majority has announced.
the rule that evidence of lack of malice may be introduced to mitigate the amount of damages accruing by reason of' mental suffering and injury to feelings. In the abstract, this is a correct statement of the law. However, it is applicable only where the mental suffering and injury to feelings results from the maliciousness of the publisher of the-libelous statements.
In the instant case, there was no allegation that the publication was malicious. Moreover, the record discloses no-evidence that the respondent suffered any injury to his feelings by reason of the publication being malicious. Nor is there anything in the record from which it might be-inferred that the mental suffering and injury to feelings-resulted from the maliciousness of the publisher.
There being no claim for damages for injured feelings,, by reason of the malice of the publisher, there are no damages that can be mitigated by showing lack of malice on the part of the appellant. The introduction of such evidence-under these circumstances would be wholly immaterial, and have only the effect of confusing the jury. Moreover, RCW 4.36.130, permitting introduction of evidence to mitigate damages, cannot apply if there are no damages to-mitigate. The trial court, therefore, correctly disallowed' the introduction of evidence that the publication was not malicious.
The judgment on the jury verdict should be affirmed.
June 20, 1961. Petition for rehearing denied.