Court Opinion

ID: 9859210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 19:14:12.591524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:09:40.432111
License: Public Domain

JONES, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion in its holding that the trial Court did not err in the giving of written instructions as to all counts in the complaint, directing a verdict for the defendant. My reason for so concluding is limited to that portion of the majority opinion which discusses the two classifications of privileged communications. I agree with the categoric and unequivocal statement contained in the majority opinion: “In cases where absolute privilege obtains there is no liability.”
*451The language quoted from 50 Am.Jur.2d, Libel and Slander, along with the language from Lawson, 289 Ala. at page 285, 267 So.2d 132, make clear the policy reasons for the absolutism of such rule and the condition of relevancy in order for the testimony to gain the status of privileged communications.
Here, the doctor’s letter, at least insofar as the doctor was concerned, constituted testimony in a judicial proceeding and its content was fully relevant and material to the litigation at hand. If the law, from considerations of public policy, extends its umbrella of immunity from civil liability to the most slanderous statements made in the course of judicial proceedings insofar as civil actions for libel and slander are concerned, then lesser degrees of culpability for the commission of the same offense must of necessity come under the same protection. This means that Count D (negligence) and Count E (wantonness) are subject to the same defect as Counts B (libel) and C (false imprisonment).
It should be pointed out that not every such action for negligence (nor for that matter every action for libel) would be protected against civil liability by the “absolutely privileged” rule. The “relevancy” test is always applicable. Suppose, for example, the physician, through an act of negligence, reported to the court on the wrong patient, thereby leading to the confinement in the mental institution of the wrong person. In such instances the relevancy test removes the cloak of immunity and an action for negligence would lie.
There is another aspect of this case (referred to earlier by inference) which, admittedly, makes this case extremely close as to the validity of the negligence and wantonness counts. The doctor’s letter, or the substance thereof, was not given as testimony in open court. Indeed, the letter was not even sworn to. Additionally, the record of the proceedings in the probate court, save a memorandum by the probate judge prepared well after the fact, fails to disclose anything which could comport to a judicial proceeding. One could not ascertain from the official court file (of which the probate judge’s later memorandum is not properly a part) that the jurisdiction of the probate court had been invoked. To put it in the mildest terms possible, serious considerations are raised as to the validity of the proceedings resulting in the commitment order of this plaintiff to Bryce Hospital. Under such circumstances, i. e., in the absence of a showing that the jurisdiction of the court had been invoked, the judge himself may be outside the immunity doctrine and liable personally for his conduct.
Nevertheless, I am constrained to the conclusion that the test as to whether the “absolutely privileged” rule is here applicable must be viewed from the perspective of the physician in his writing and furnishing this letter to the probate court. Certainly, as far as he was concerned, Dr. Feist had every right to assume that his letter to Judge Hickman was being furnished to the court in a matter in which its jurisdiction had been invoked and that his letter was to constitute testimony in a legal proceeding.
Having so concluded, I would not reach the other points discussed in the majority opinion and I would agree with the reservations expressed by Justice BLOOD-WORTH in his special concurring opinion.