Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thourot v. Hartnett

Decided: July 8, 1959.

HARRY J. THOUROT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
BERNARD M. HARTNETT AND MURRAY GREIMAN, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS



Price, Gaulkin and Sullivan.

Per Curiam

In this action Thourot sues Hartnett, and Greiman his attorney, for libel, alleging that certain allegations contained in a complaint drawn by Greiman and filed in a previous action instituted by Hartnett against Thourot, were defamatory. Hartnett and Greiman moved for summary judgment on the ground that these allegations were privileged. The motion was granted, and Thourot appeals.

Section 587 of the Restatement of the Law of Torts says:

"A party to a private litigation * * * is absolutely privileged to publish false and defamatory matter of another * * * in the institution of or during the course and as a part of a judicial proceeding in which he participates, if the matter has some relation thereto."

Comment (c) under this section of the Restatement says:

"It is not necessary that the defamatory matter be relevant or material to any issue before the Court. It is enough that it have some reference to the subject of the inquiry. Thus, while a party may not introduce into his pleadings defamatory matter which is entirely disconnected with the litigation, he is not answerable for defamatory matter volunteered or included by way of surplusage in his pleadings if it has any bearing upon the subject matter of the litigation."

The privilege of the attorney is at least as broad as that of the party, "irrespective of his purpose in publishing the defamatory matter, his belief in its truth or even his knowledge of its falsity. These matters are of importance only in determining the amenability of the attorney to the disciplinary power of the court of which he is an officer." Restatement , ยง 586, comment (a).

"Matter, to which the privilege does not extend, must be so wanting in relation to the subject matter of controversy as that no reasonable man can doubt its irrelevancy and impropriety." Harlow v. Carroll , 6 App. D.C. 128, 139 (1895).

In Fenning v. S.G. Holding Corp. , 47 N.J. Super. 110, 118 (App. Div. 1957), the court said:

"The pertinency thus required is not a technical legal relevancy, such as would, necessarily, justify insertion of the matter in a pleading or its admission into evidence, but rather a general frame of reference and relationship to the subject matter of the action. Johnston v. Schlarb , 7 Wash. 2 d 528, 110 P. 2 d 190, 134 A.L.R. 474. As to the degree of relevance needed to invoke the absolute shield of this immunity, the courts are most liberal. * * *"

See also Rainier's Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc. , 19 N.J. 552 (1955); Rogers v. Thompson , 89 N.J.L. 639 (E. & A. 1916); O'Regan v. Schermerhorn , 25 N.J. Misc. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1946). Cf., La Porta v. Leonard , 88 N.J.L. 663 (E. & A. 1915).

Numerous cases illustrating the application of these rules are collected in the annotations ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.