WILLIAM S. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING CO., INC., APPELLEE; JAMES M. FOWLER, APPELLANT, V. ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING CO., INC., APPELLEE
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.
Two terminated brewery employees appealed from a directed verdict dismissing their slander claims against Anheuser-Busch for statements made during termination and explaining the terminations. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding the statements were either not published to third parties or were privileged communications.
The court held that the statements were either not published to third parties or were privileged communications. Statements made simultaneously and privately to the appellants were not publications concerning either appellant. Statements made to nonemployees who inquired were either not publications or were privileged, particularly where the manager expressed a personal belief that appellants did not steal beer.
[1] A private communication made directly to an employee regarding their alleged misconduct is not a publication for purposes of a slander claim.
[2] Statements made by an employer to an employee concerning the employee's alleged theft are not defamatory if they are a demand for explanation or a statement of charges th…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The words addressed by one of the managers simultaneously and privately to appellants was not a publication, defamatory or otherwise, concerning either.”
Establishes that private communications to the appellants themselves did not constitute publication required for defamation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Smith and Fowler were employed by Anheuser-Busch and were terminated by the brewery's industrial relations manager and brewmaster. The mana…
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 Publication cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Appellants in these consolidated cases appeal from a Duval County circuit court judgment entered on a directed verdict dismissing their claims against Anheuser-Busch for slander. Appellants’ claims arose from statements by the brewery’s industrial relations manager and brewmaster when terminating appellants’ employ and explaining their termination to others.
Appellants alleged those managers falsely published defamatory statements to the effect that appellants conspired to steal or stole a quantity of beer from the brewery.
The evidence did not support the allegation. The words addressed by one of the managers simultaneously and privately to appellants was not a publication, defamatory or otherwise, concerning either. That communication was a demand for explanation concerning appellants’ alleged joint actions. See Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Inc., 66 So. 2d 495 (Fla.1953); Silveira v. Aircraft Casting, Inc., 291 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
We need not determine whether words spoken to appellants by a manager in the presence of an assistant brewmaster constituted a publication to the assistant or whether that communication was privileged. See Drennen v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 328 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
The words were not defamatory: “Mr. Stoud said to me [appellant Smith] that the guard has implicated me as far as stealing beer, and he has to terminate me for these charges of stealing beer unless I can prove that I didn’t steal the beer.”
The explanation spoken by a manager to nonemployees who inquired and sought to intervene at the instance of ap pellant Smith was not a publication, or was privileged. Maine v. Allstate Ins. Co., 240 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). The manager’s profession of belief that appellants did not steal beer, expressed when responding to a nonemployee’s inquiry, was a personal amelioration of the brewery’s discharge of appellants for “involvement” in beer theft, not a personal or corporate confession of bad faith destroying the speaker’s privilege to respond to the inquiry induced by appellant Smith. We have studied the briefs and canvassed the record. We have found no error. AFFIRMED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glynn v. City OF Kissimmee, 383 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…test was administered to Glynn, and the results were 0.0%. The trial court ruled that no publication of the slander took place because the communications were between employees of the same employer, citing Smith v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co., Inc., 346 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). But the Smith case expressly did not reach that question:1 We need not determine whether words spoken to appellants by a manager in the presence of an assistant brewmaster constituted a publication to the assistant or whether t…
-
Pledger v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 432 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…RSEY, J., concurs. BERANEK, J., dissents with opinion. . § 768.28, Fla.Stat. (1981). . Ch. 83, Fla.Stat. (1981). . § 578.26, Fla.Stat. (1981). . Ch. 672-680 et seq., Fla.Stat. (1981). . We do not agree that Smith v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co., 346 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), holds that any allegation of conspiracy renders a plaintiff subject to the co-venturer rule. The Smith court stated at 126, “That communication was a demand for explanation concerning appellant’s alleged joint actions,” citing C…
-
Garvey Charles v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families Dist. Nine & Iris Robinson-Griffin, 914 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ine v. Allstate Insurance Co., 240 So. 2d 857 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1970) (“[A] communication addressed to a third party, procured to be so addressed by the party libeled, does not amount to a publication.”). See also Smith v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co., 346 So. 2d 125 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977). Id. at 1560-61 (emphasis added). The invited defamation defense articulated by Litman applies to Charles’s claim. The facts of this case are strikingly similar to an illustration of invited defamation given in the Restateme…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Drennen v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 328 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Travis v. State, 240 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Silveira v. Aircraft Casting, Inc., 291 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)