Court Opinion

ID: 9571260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:30:21.853425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:39.488537
License: Public Domain

TUCKETT, Justice
(concurring).
I concur. The plaintiff’s cause of action is controlled by the provisions of Section 45-2-5, U.C.A.1953, which are set forth in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Ellett. Before the plaintiff could prevail he had the burden of showing malice on the part of the defendant in broadcasting or pei'mitting the broadcasting of the defamatory material as claimed by him. Ordinarily, the plaintiff would be entitled to have the issue of malice as well as the other fact questions determined by a jury. However, the record before us indicates that the plaintiff agreed in the district court to have the issues determined by the court from the pleadings, depositions and affidavits on file. The plaintiff having agreed to that procedure he cannot claim on appeal that his right to a jury trial was denied.