Court Opinion

ID: 9574782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:08:19.282674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:12.112066
License: Public Domain

Erankum, Judge,
dissenting. I agree with the majority opinion that the law of libel is broader than the law of slander, but I am of the opinion that the facts alleged in this petition do not bring this case within the so-called “libel per se” rule. It is pointed out in the majority opinion that the Georgia interpretation of libel is broader than in other jurisdictions, in that, not only do words alleged in a petition to be libelous per se ordinarily take their meaning from the words themselves, but the Georgia rule adds that should the words be ambiguous, a party may show by innuendo that one of the meanings of the printed words was intended to, and did have, the manifest effect of being injurious to his reputation. Holmes v. Clisby, 118 Ga. 820 (45 S. E. 684). See Brandon v. Arkansas Fuel Oil Co., 64 Ga. App. 139 (12 S. E. 2d 414); Williams v. Equitable Credit Co., 33 Ga. App. 441 (126 S. E. 855). Also see a discussion of this *845principle in a slander case, Cooper v. Perry, 2 Dud. (Ga. Dec.) 247 (1833). And words innocent in nature but which could be understood in a double sense may be shown to be libelous. Southeastern Newspapers, Inc. v. Walker, 76 Ga. App. 57 (44 S. E. 2d 697).
In the instant case the words in the headline and the accompanying article, to the effect that the plaintiff, a representative in the State legislature, “opposed the ‘honesty’ bill,” do not impart an ambiguity which may be demonstrated by innuendo to be libelous per se. Furthermore, the quote of another legislator that “I can’t see anyone opposing it,” after stating the supposed purpose of the bill, does not impute dishonesty to the plaintiff. I have to digress here a moment to say that the plaintiff does not make a single allegation in his petition that the newspaper’s publication of the quotation by his fellow legislator was libelous, nor is there an allegation to show that the quotation of a fellow legislator is outside the privilege of reporting legislative proceedings. Code § 105-704. Therefore, this portion of the publication neither helps nor detracts from the plaintiff’s action. The gist of the plaintiff’s petition complains that the newspaper reported that the plaintiff “opposed the ‘honesty’ bill,” when in fact, he supported it; which report, when read, infers the plaintiff is dishonest, and, therefore, the publication is libelous. As stated below, this does not intrinsically imply that the plaintiff is dishonest. There is nothing immoral, dishonest, or incorrect for a legislator to oppose a particular bill before the General Assembly. Anderson v. Kennedy, 47 Ga. App. 380 (170 S. E. 555). Particularly is this true if the alleged statements do not imply an ulterior or sinister motive to the plaintiff as a basis for his opposition to the bill. The assumption that the plaintiff opposed the alleged “honesty bill” does not imply that the plaintiff is dishonest, but only for any number of reasons he opposed the passage of this bill by the legislature. Therefore, the additional allegation that the words (which are not libelous in themselves) subjected the plaintiff to public embarrassment, humiliation and contempt, add nothing to the allegations, because such allegation is nothing but a conclusion unsupported by properly pleaded facts. The rule is stated in Savannah *846News-Press, Inc. v. Harley, 100 Ga. App. 387 (1b) (111 S. E. 2d 259), as follows: “A demurrer admits all well pleaded allegations of a petition but does not admit conclusions of the pleader unsupported by facts authorizing such a conclusion. Lee v. City of Atlanta, 197 Ga. 518, 520 (29 S. E. 2d 774); Robertson v. Panlos, 208 Ga. 116, 118 (65 S. E. 2d 400). Accordingly, the allegations of this petition such as those characterizing the, publication as libelous and libelous per se are mere conclusions not supported by the pleaded facts. Likewise, the allegations of the petition that the plaintiff ‘has not been and is not guilty of the offense charged or intended to be charged by said letter and article,’ and that ‘the same are untrue, unfair and without foundation in fact’ are conclusions of the pleader not supported by the pleaded facts and are not admitted on demurrer.”
If the published article is not libelous per se, is there any other type of action that can be brought under the libel law? The contention is raised that there is no such degree of libel as libel per quod. If this contention is true, the use of the term libel per se by our courts down through the years is a misnomer, in that, “libel” is “libel.” The use of the qualifying clause “per se” implies the existence of some other degree of libel. See Weatherholt v. Howard, 143 Ga. 41 (84 S. E. 119); Holmes v. Clisby, 118 Ga. 820, supra; Davis v. Macon Tel. Pub. Co., 93 Ga. App. 633 (92 S. E. 2d 619); Anderson v. Kennedy, 47 Ga. App. 380, supra; Harrison v. Pool, 24 Ga. App. 587 (101 S. E. 765). It is important to note at this juncture that Black’s Law Dictionary defines per quod: “When the declaration in an action of tort, after stating the acts complained of, goes on to allege the consequences of those acts as a ground of special damage to the plaintiff, the recital of such consequences is prefaced by these words, ‘per quod,’ whereby; and sometimes the phrase is used as the name of that clause of the declaration.” Or, “Words ‘actionable per quod’ are those not actionable per se upon their face, but are only actionable in consequence of extrinsic facts showing circumstances under which they were said . . .” In other words, per quod is to show by innuendo or by an allegation of special damages whereby a plaintiff has been injured.
Whatever other jurisdictions have held, I am bound by the *847prior decisions of this court unless they are overruled. This court has adjudicated’ that there is a degree of libel requiring allegations by innuendo and allegations of special damages in order to set forth a cause of action—hence, libel per quod by definition, though not designated as such by name. Haggard v. Shaw, 100 Ga. App. 813, supra; Mell v. Edge, 68 Ga. App. 314, supra; Estes v. Sterchi Bros. Stores, 50 Ga. App. 619, supra; Anderson v. Kennedy, 47 Ga. App. 380, supra. The effect of the maj ority opinion is to sweep these cases under the rug by saying they have no bearing on the instant case and refer only to delinquent debtor cases. If the principle is sound for one classification of individuals in libel actions, it is sound for all persons unless there is some legal reason for holding otherwise. I have found no legal reason to exclude this principle in this case. The mere reading of these cases requires the conclusion that, under the Georgia law, there may be libel per quod which requires an allegation of special damages to sustain it. In fact the Anderson case, which is very similar in principle to the instant case, specifically ruled upon various allegations as failing to allege special damages before reversing the trial court’s ruling which had overruled a general demurrer.
A petition may show by innuendo that such words, though not libelous per se, were falsely and maliciously printed to defame the plaintiff, and, therefore, are libelous per quod. See 53 C. J. S. 41, Libel and Slander, § 8; Holmes v. Clisby, 118 Ga. 820, supra; Haggard v. Shaw, 100 Ga. App. 813, supra; Davis v. General Finance &c. Corp., 80 Ga. App. 708 (57 S. E. 2d 225) ; Mell v. Edge, 68 Ga. App. 314, supra; Estes v. Sterchi Bros. Stores, 50 Ga. App. 619, supra; Anderson v. Kennedy, 47 Ga. App. 380, supra. See Weatherholt v. Howard, 143 Ga. 41, supra; Harrison v. Pool, 24 Ga. App. 587, supra. A public officer is entitled to be protected from libel to the same extent as any other citizen (Lowe v. News Publishing Co., 9 Ga. App. 103, 70 S. E. 607), and this includes his right to have a correct and honest report of his position on public issues if such report is printed. See Barwick v. Wind, 203 Ga. 827, supra; Augusta Evening News v. Radford, 91 Ga. 494 (17 S. E. 612, 20 L. R. A. 533, 44 Am. St. Rep. 53); Savannah News-Press v. Grayson, 102 Ga. App. 59, supra.
*848The allegation that the alleged libel injured the plaintiff’s political career will not support special- damages. Anderson v. Kennedy, 47 Ga. App. 380, supra. Though the petition avers that the plaintiff “fears for his continued employment” with a certain organization, this allegation is insufficient to allege special damages, in that it is nowhere averred that the plaintiff lost his employment or suffered a .pecuniary damage. Mell v. Edge, 68 Ga. App. 314, supra. Even if the allegation that the publication subjected the plaintiff to the “butt” of jokes, ridicule, or contempt, sets forth sufficient facts authorizing a claim for special damages (Augusta Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Arrington, 42 Ga. App. 746, supra) and is not a conclusion unsupported by properly pleaded facts, the plaintiff, by his petition and prayer therein, fails to claim special damages.
The only damages asked for in the ad damnum clause of the petition are as follows: “. . . [P]laintiff is entitled to damages to deter the defendant from repeating the acts of libel complained of and demands general and exemplary and punitive damages against the defendant in the sum of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).” The only prayer by the plaintiff for damages is for general, exemplary, punitive damages, and expenses of litigation in stated amounts. The plaintiff has cast his complaint upon the theory that he is entitled to recover of the defendant general- damages, with additional exemplary or punitive damages, and expenses of litigation. The plaintiff claims general damages to which he is not entitled, as only special damages will support an action for libel per quod. “Where it is necessary to allege special damages in order to set out a cause of action the particular loss or injury must be distinctly stated, and the ad damnum clause, that the plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of $25,000, is not the equivalent of such an averment.” Ajouelo v. Auto-Soler Co., 61 Ga. App. 216 (6 S. E. 2d 415); Schweikert v. New York Evening Journal, 132 Misc. 169, 229 N. Y. S. 662; Harriss v. Metropolis, 118 Fla. 825, 160 So. 205; 53 C. J. S. 269-271, Libel and Slander, § 170c. Strictly construing the petition against the pleader and stripping it of conclusions, the petition asks for no special damages. To hold the petition sets forth a cause of action for gen*849eral damages would erase the distinction between libel per se and libel per quod. As to the remaining claim for damages, exemplary or punitive damages cannot properly be claimed in a petition which does not set forth a cause of action for other damages. Foster v. Sikes, 202 Ga. 122 (42 S. E. 2d 441); Hitchcock Corp. v. Turner, 102 Ga. App. 452 (116 S. E. 2d 653); Beverly v. Observer Pub. Co., 88 Ga. App. 490 (77 S. E. 2d. 80). Consequently, the petition fails to set forth a cause of action, and the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer.
I further believe that any discussion of special damages under the majority opinion is superfluous in that such element is not required under its holding. Because I feel it is the duty of the court to eliminate any confusion that creeps into its decisions, I have written this rather lengthy dissent. I, therefore, feel that if the majority wishes to discuss the above cases dealing with the necessity of allegations of special damages as an essential element to set forth a cause of action in relation to the instant case, the holding of these cases should not be put in a corner as having no bearing on the instant case, but should be adhered to or overruled. As the maj ority has not seen fit to overrule them, I am bound by them whether I agree with the holdings or not, no matter what courts of other jurisdictions have held or what other treatises have stated the rule to be. However, upon reflection, I find no reason of law that would deny a plaintiff an action for a false publication which, though not libelous per se, caused the plaintiff special damages. “For every right there shall be a remedy, and every court having jurisdiction of the one may, if necessary, frame the other.” Code § 3-105. See also Code § 105-101. My opinion is that the instant case does not come within the libel per se rule, but falls within the classification which requires an element of special damages in order to constitute a cause of action. For reasons stated above, the petition, stripped of its conclusions, does not measure up to this classification, and, therefore, is subject to general demurrer.