DAN PIVER, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS B. HOBERMAN AND ESTELLE E. HOBERMAN, HIS WIFE, WALTER SHWITZER AND MARION SHWITZER, HIS WIFE, JOSEPH RICH AND DOROTHY B. RICH, HIS WIFE, EDITH ZUCKERMAN, JACOB BERNSTEIN, HERBERT H. MENDELL, JR. AND JOSEPHINE R. MENDELL, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a councilman's libel and conspiracy complaint against appellees. The court found the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege special damages, which are required for libel per quod.
No, a complaint alleging libel per quod, which requires innuendo to derive a defamatory meaning, must include an allegation of special damages to state a cause of action. The trial judge correctly dismissed the complaint for failing to do so.
“An allegation of special damages is an indispensable element of a complaint if the cause of action alleged is libel per quod.”
This quote establishes the legal requirement for alleging special damages in cases of libel per quod.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant, a city councilman, alleged that appellees circulated a recall petition containing false statements of grounds for his recall, made with act…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Libel Per Quod cases and more on FLexlaw
Dan Piver appeals from an order dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. The complaint charged the appel-lees with libel of the appellant and conspiracy to libel the appellant.
The appellant was a councilman in the City of North Miami Beach. In his complaint he alleges that the appellees with actual malice toward him circulated a petition for his recall as councilman and that the statement of grounds for the recall was false. We have previously considered this same recall petition in Piver v. Stallman, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 859. It is clear from the holding in the last cited case and the finding of the trial judge, which eliminated certain of the grounds in the recall petition as insufficient, that the grounds of the recall petition did not charge a crime nor did they charge misconduct in office. The appellant urges nevertheless that the grounds are such that an ordinary man would consider them as charging the appellant with dishonesty in office. The appellant’s complaint demonstrates that such a meaning could be derived only by examining the petition for innuendo; therefore, if the statements in the petition are libelous, they are not libelous per se but per quod. Commander v. Pederson, 116 Fla. 148, 156 So. *409337, 339-340 (1934). See, too, Adams v. News-Journal Corporation, Fla.1956, 84 So.2d 549, 551. An allegation of special damages is an indispensable element of a complaint if the cause of action alleged is libel per quod. See Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 495, 498. We therefore conclude that the trial judge correctly dismissed the appellant’s complaint because it contained no allegation of special damages.
We reach this decision without considering the appellees’ contention that the statement of grounds in the recall petition was a privileged communication because it was a part of the exercise of the right to recall a councilman as provided by the city charter.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp., 431 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…in its generic sense to the former situation, and statements with defamatory implications which need no extrinsic facts to illuminate their defamatory meaning have been inappropriately classified as actionable per quod. See e.g., Piver v. Hoberman, 220 So. 2d 408 (Fla.App.1969).... Eaton, “The American Law of Defamation Through Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. and Beyond. An Analytical Primer,” 61 Va.L. Rev. 1349, 1850-52 (1975). .The trial court, in looking at the complaint, and the allegations contained there…
-
Helga Laks v. Longo, 521 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Piver v. Hoberman, 220 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); see Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 413 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 424 So. 2d 763 (Fla.1982).…
-
Faiks v. Broward Cnty. BAR Ass'n, Inc., 282 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Knapp v. Post Printing & Publishing Co., 1943, 111 Colo. 492, 144 P. 2d 981; 19 A.L.R.3d p. 1361 et seq. See also Piver v. Hoberman, Fla.App.1969, 220 So. 2d 408. CROSS and MAGER, JJ., and SMITH, CULyER, Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Inc., 66 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1953)
- Commander v. Pedersen, 116 Fla. 148 (Fla. 1934)
- Isham W. Adams v. News-Journal Corp., 84 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1955)
- Piver v. Stallman, 198 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)