Eckman v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CA-02223-SCT
Linked Case(s): 2003-CA-02223-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 02-17-2005
Opinion Author: Easley, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Defamation - Qualified privilege - Actual malice
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J.
Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J.
Procedural History: Summary Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-03-2003
Appealed from: Lee County Circuit Court
Judge: Thomas J. Gardner
Disposition: Granted summary judgment in favor of Cooper Tire & Rubber Company.
Case Number: CV99-176

Note: Motion for rehearing filed by appellant is denied.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Walter W. Eckman




THOMAS A. WICKER



 

Appellee: Cooper Tire & Rubber Company and Shanan Professional Review Services, Inc. WILLIAM C. MURPHREE  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Defamation - Qualified privilege - Actual malice

Summary of the Facts: The motion for rehearing is denied, and this opinion is substituted for the original opinion. Walter Eckman, M.D., sued Cooper Tire & Rubber Company and Shanan Professional Review Services, Inc., alleging that they prepared and published reports which contained false, defamatory and libelous statements concerning him and that they exceeded the scope of any qualified privilege. Cooper and Shanan filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court entered a partial summary judgment, noting that the motion only addressed the issue of defamation and qualified privilege. The court certified the judgment as final, and Eckman appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Qualified privilege The statements were made by two doctors in the course of evaluating the medical services Eckman provided to employees of Cooper as required by section 41-63-3. Eckman argues that the statements in question are not subject to qualified privilege, because there is nothing in the contractual relationships existing between Cooper and Shanan which calls for statements regarding criminal culpability or professional competency. A communication made in good faith and on a subject matter in which the person making it has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, even though it contains matter which without this privilege would be slanderous, provided the statement is made without malice and in good faith. Here, a qualified privilege existed as to Shanan and Cooper because the statements were made to those with a direct interest in the subject matter. In addition, the only people who read or heard of the defamatory remarks were Cooper, Shanan, and Eckman’s own employees, who testified that they read the remarks in the routine course of their business. There was no excessive publication because Cooper and Shanan confined the remarks about Eckman to those interested in the review process. Issue 2: Actual malice Eckman argues that the question of whether the statement was made with malice is an issue for the jury. If the publication is subject to the qualified privilege from business communications, liability for defamation may still attach upon a finding of malice, which is defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard to as to truth or falsity. A jury does not decide whether a defendant acted with actual malice unless a genuine issue of material fact exists. Eckman has not presented any affirmative evidence demonstrating actual malice to defeat the qualified privilege.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court