 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harrison v. Great Lakes Beverage Company11/6/2001
UNPUBLISHED
In this defamation case, plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting defendants' motion for summary disposition. We affirm.
Plaintiff, a former truck driver for defendant Great Lakes Beverage Company, filed this defamation action after a statement appeared in the December 1997 edition of Great Lakes' publication, the "Scuttle Bud." The statement reported that, " he Enquirer has named Jeff Harrison as the Serial Stalker of Great Lakes Beverage Drivers." During the course of his employment with Great Lakes, plaintiff had been disciplined for several minor infractions and had been hospitalized several times for alcoholism and depression. He was disciplined in 1991 for drinking on the job and was required to sign a "last chance agreement" in order to be reinstated. Plaintiff was ultimately discharged from Great Lakes in 1994, following a complaint of sexual harassment. Plaintiff subsequently worked for a short period of time for Leaseway Transportation as a driver, but was terminated for unsatisfactory work. He has not worked since.
After his termination from Great Lakes, from 1995 until 1997, plaintiff routinely stopped other drivers on their routes and conversed with them. The drivers began to joke and grumble amongst themselves about plaintiff's habit of stopping and gossiping with them while they were working.
The "Scuttle Bud" is a paper published by Great Lakes at the holiday season. It contains seasons' greetings, and comments and some humorous statements about employees from the department heads. Defendant Walton, who wrote the statement in question, intended it as a merely humorous reflection of the joking and complaining by drivers concerning the fact that plaintiff often stopped them on their routes and slowed them down in their work.
Plaintiff subsequently commenced this action, alleging that the statement as it appeared in the "Scuttle Bud" constituted defamation per se because it falsely accused him of criminal behavior. The circuit court granted defendants' motion for summary disposition, concluding that it was rhetorical hyperbole and that no reasonable reader could conclude that the company was actually accusing plaintiff of a crime.
We review a grant or denial of a motion for summary disposition de novo. Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests whether there is factual support for a claim. Spiek, supra; Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 374; 501 NW2d 155 (1993). A court must consider the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, or any other documentary evidence submitted in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party in deciding whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. Ritchie- Gamester v Berkley, 461 Mich 73, 76; 597 NW2d 517 (1999); Rollert v Dep't of Civil Service, 228 Mich App 534, 536; 579 NW2d 118 (1998). All reasonable inferences are resolved in the nonmoving party's favor. Kefgen v Davidson, 241 Mich App 611, 616; 617 NW2d 351 (2000).
A trial court may decide as a matter of law whether a statement is actually capable of defamatory meaning. Ireland v Edwards, 230 Mich App 607, 619; 584 NW2d 632 (1998). Where no such meaning is possible, summary disposition is appropriate. Id.
A communication is defamatory if, under all the circumstances, it tends to so harm the reputation of an individual that it lowers the individual's reputation in the community or deters others from associating or dealing with the individual. Kefgen, supra at 617. Generally, a plaintiff may establish a claim of defamation by showing:
(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|