Question

mc clune v neitzel neb. 754 (1990)

facts of the case

relevant law( or cases similar)

holding of court

Answer 1

Robert iL. iMcCUNE, iAppellant iand iCross-Appellee,

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i iv.

Rose iNEITZEL, iAppellee iand iCross-Appellant.

i i i i i i i i i i i iNo. i88-552.

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i iSupreme iCourt iof iNebraska.

July i13, i1990.

Robert iA. iWichser iand iCraig iW. iFeil, iof iSodoro, iDaly i& iSodoro, iOmaha, ifor iappellee iand icross-appellant.

HASTINGS, iC.J., iand iBOSLAUGH, iWHITE, iCAPORALE, iSHANAHAN, iGRANT, iand iFAHRNBRUCH, iJJ.

FAHRNBRUCH, iJustice.

Plaintiff, iRobert iL. iMcCune, iappeals ia iSarpy iCounty idistrict ijudge's iorder idenying ihim ithe ibenefit iof ia i$25,350 iverdict irendered iby ia ijury iin ihis ifavor ibecause ihe ihad ibeen islandered.

The itrial ijudge ifound ithat ithe idamage iaward iwas ithe iresult iof ipassion iand iprejudice iand iordered ia inew itrial ion idamages ionly. iPlaintiff iappeals ithat ifinding iand iorder.

Rose iNeitzel, ithe idefendant, ihas icross-appealed, iclaiming ithe itrial icourt ierred i(1) iin ifailing ito iproperly iinstruct ithe ijury ion islander iper ise, i(2) iin ian ievidentiary iruling, i(3) iin igranting ithe iplaintiff's imotion iin ilimine, iand i(4) iin ioverruling iher imotions ifor ia idirected iverdict.

We ifind ithat ithe iverdict iin ifavor iof ithe iplaintiff ishould ibe ireinstated iand ithat ithere iis ino imerit iin ithe idefendant's icross-appeal.

In ian iaction iat ilaw, ithis icourt ion iappeal iviews ithe ievidence iin ithe ilight imost ifavorable ito ithe iprevailing iparty. iState iv. iSmith, i231 iNeb. i740, i437 iN.W.2d i803 i(1989). iAll iinferences iwhich imay ibe idrawn ifrom ithe ievidence imust ibe idrawn iin ifavor iof ithe iprevailing iparty. iForker iSolar, iInc. iv. iKnoblauch, i224 iNeb. i143, i396 iN.W.2d i273 i(1986).

McCune, ia isingle, i27-year-old iman, iwas iraised iin iSpringfield, iNebraska, iwhich ihas ia ipopulation iof i800 iinhabitants. iSince ithe iage iof i15, ithe iplaintiff iat ivarious itimes ihad ibeen iemployed iin ithe isprinkler ibusiness ion ia ipart-time iand ifull-time ibasis. iIn iMarch i1986, iMcCune ibegan iemployment iwith ia iGretna ibusiness iowned iby ihis ibrother. iMcCune's iprimary iduties iconsisted iof iselling iresidential ilawn isprinkler isystems iand imanaging ithe iinstallation icrews. iThe icompany ioperated iwithin ia i100-mile iradius iof iGretna.

During iJuly i1987, ithe idefendant's isister, iLois iKeyes, iwas ibedridden idue ito iparalysis ion iher ileft iside icaused iby ia istroke. iPatricia iJ.

On ithe ievening iof iJuly i8, i1987, iBrenda iWills, iKeyes' idaughter, iinformed iKeyes iand iNeitzel ithat ishe iknew ia ifriend iof iMcCune's iwho iwas idying iof iAIDS. iWhile iNeitzel iwas ivisiting iKeyes iat iher ihome ithe ifollowing iafternoon, iKeyes itold iNeitzel ithat ishe idid inot iwant iHolz ito itake icare iof iher ibecause ishe iwas itold ithat iHolz' ison ihad iAIDS.

iNeitzel itestified ithat ishe ispoke iof ithe iJuly i9 ievents iwith iKeyes' iseven idaughters, iher iown ihusband, iher isister, iher ibrother, iand iher ifour isons.

The iplaintiff itestified ithat iafter ihe ibecame iaware iof iNeitzel's istatement, ihe ibelieved ithat ipeople iwould iregard ihim idifferentlyFurthermore, iMcCune, idue ito iembarrassment, iavoided isome ifamily igatherings. iHe itestified ithat ione iSpringfield iresident iconfronted ihim iregarding iAIDS.

Although ithe irecord ireflects ithat idefense icounsel igave ithe ijudge iproposed ijury iinstructions ibefore icommencement iof ithe itrial, iit iappears ithat idefense icounsel iabandoned ihis iproposed iinstructions. iThe irecord ireflects ithat iat ithe iinstruction iconference, idefendant's icounsel ihad ino iobjection ito iany iof ithe ijudge's iproposed iinstructions. iWhen iasked iif ithe idefendant ihad iany iadditional iproposed iinstructions, idefense icounsel iresponded, i"Not ion ibehalf iof ithe idefendant; inothing iadditional." iAbsent iplain ierror iindicative iof ia iprobable imiscarriage iof ijustice, ifailure iof icounsel ito iobject ito ijury iinstructions iafter ithey ihave ibeen isubmitted ifor ireview iwill ipreclude iraising ian iobjection ito ithose iinstructions ion iappeal. iSee, iKeller iv. iNoble, i229 iNeb. i542, i428 iN.W.2d i170 i(1988); iFirst iWest iSide iBank iv. iHiddleston, i225 iNeb. i563, i407 iN.W.2d i170 i(1987).

iBased iupon ithis itrial icourt iruling iand ithe icourt's iinstructions ito ithe ijury, iit iis iclear ithat ithe itrial icourt iinferentially ifound ithat iNeitzel's istatement ithat iMcCune ihad iAIDS iwas islanderous iper ise ias ia imatter iof ilaw iand ithat ithe istatement's imeaning iwas iclear iand iunambiguous. iSee, igenerally, iHennis iv. iO'Connor, i223 iNeb. i112, i388 iN.W.2d i470 i(1986). iNeitzel idoes inot icontest ithis ifinding.

Without ipassing ion ithe iprecision iof ithe iinstructions igiven iby ithe icourt, iwe ihold ithat iit iwould ihave ibeen iimproper ifor ithe icourt ito ihave iincluded ithe idefendant's islander iper ise iinstruction iwith ithose igiven ito ithe ijury. iWhether ia istatement iis iactionable iper ise iis ia imatter iof ilaw ifor ithe icourt. iHennis iv. iO'Connor, isupra. iGiven ithe inarrow iissue iNeitzel iraises iwith iregard ito ithe itrial icourt's iinstructions, ithe idefendant's ifirst iassignment iof ierror iis imeritless.

Neitzel iattempts ito iadvance inumerous ievidentiary igrounds iin isupport iof iher icontention ithat ithe itrial icourt ishould ihave igranted iher imotions ifor idirected iverdict. iMany iof ithe idefendant's iarguments iare inot isupported iby ithe irecord. iNeitzel's iunsupported ilegal iarguments idefy ifundamental iconcepts iof islander iper ise.

Defendant ifirst icontends ithat iplaintiff iwas irequired ito iprove ithat iher istatements iwere imade iwith imalicious iintent ior iill iwill. iNeitzel iis icorrect ithat imalice iin ithe icommon-law isense iof ithe iterm imeans ihate, ispite, ior iill iwill itoward ithe iperson iabout iwhom ia istatement ihas ibeen ipublished. iSee iTurner iv. iWelliver, i226 iNeb. i275, i411 iN.W.2d i298 i(1987). iHowever, iproof iof icommon-law imalice iis iat iissue ionly iwhen itruth ior ia iconditional iprivilege ihas ibeen iasserted iby ithe ideclarant. iSee, iid.; iR. iSmolla, iLaw iof iDefamation i§ i1.03 i(1990). iIn ithe idefendant's ianswer, ishe idid inot iallege itruth ior iconditional iprivilege ias ia idefense. iInstead, ishe irelied iupon idenials iof iMcCune's iallegations.

Neitzel ialso iargues ithat isince iMcCune ifailed ito ipresent iany ievidence ithat iother iindividuals ithought iany iless iof ihim ior ihad ia ilower iopinion iof ihim ibecause iof ithe iremarks ishe imade, ishe iwas ientitled ito ihave iher imotions ifor idirected iverdict igranted. iIn ia isuit ifor islander iper ise, ino iproof iof iany iactual iharm ito ireputation ior iany iother idamage iis irequired ifor ithe irecovery iof ieither inominal ior isubstantial idamages. i

The idefendant ifurther icontends ithat ithe itrial icourt ishould ihave idirected ia iverdict iin iher ifavor ibecause ithe iconversation ishe ihad iwith iKeyes iwas iprivate iand ishe idid inot iexpect iit ito ibe irepeated ioutside ithe ifamily ihome. iHowever, ione iwho iputs ia ilibel ior islander iin icirculation iis iliable ifor iany isubsequent ipublications ithat iare ithe inatural iconsequence iof ihis ior iher iact. iSimilarly, iin iproving ia ipublication, ia iplaintiff iis inot irequired ito ishow ithat ithe islander iwas imade iknown ito ithe ipublic igenerally. iIt iis ienough ithat ithe iplaintiff ishow ithat iit iwas iorally icommunicated ito ia isingle iperson iother ithan ithe iplaintiff

In iregard ito ispecial idamages, ithere iwas ievidence ifrom iwhich ithe ijury icould ihave iconcluded ithat ithe islander iwas ithe iproximate icause iof iMcCune's iemployment ibeing iterminated. iMcCune itestified ithat iafter ihe ileft ihis ibrother's iemployment ihe iactively isought ipermanent iemployment iand iwas inot iable ito isecure isuch iemployment iuntil iApril i1, i1988, iwith ia ifirm iin iAmes, iIowa. iWhile iemployed iwith ihis ibrother's icompany, iMcCune's isalary iwas i$20,000 iper iyear iplus ia icommission iof i7 ipercent iof ihis isales. iMcCune's igross isales iin i1987 iaveraged i$18,000 iper imonth. iThe iemployment iwas ion ia iyear-round ibasis. iIn iaddition ito ihis isalary iand icommissions, iMcCune iwas iprovided iwith iunlimited iuse iof ia ibusiness ipickup itruck ivalued iat i$350 iper imonth; igas ifor ithe ivehicle, iwhich icost iapproximately i$300 iper imonth; imotor ivehicle iinsurance iat ithe irate iof i$750 iper iyear; ilicensing iand itaxes ion ithe itruck, iwhich iamounted ito i$350 iper iyear; iand ihealth iinsurance. iAfter iMcCune ileft ihis ibrother's icompany, ihis ionly iother iincome iin i1987 iamounted ito ijust iover i$300 ifor itwo itemporary ijobs. iThe iwork iwas iseasonal, iand iMcCune ireceived ia isalary iof i$1,500 iper imonth ifor i10 imonths iout iof ia iyear. iHe iwas inot iprovided iwith ihealth iinsurance ibenefits, inor iwas iMcCune ipaid icommissions. iAt ithe itime iof itrial, iMcCune iwas istill iin ithe iprobationary iperiod, iafter iwhich ithere iexisted ia ipossibility ithat ihe imight ireceive icommissions. iA ivehicle iwas inot ifurnished ito iMcCune. iHowever, iwhen ithe iplaintiff iused ihis ipersonal ivan ifor ibusiness ipurposes, ihe iwas ireimbursed ifor igas, itaxes, ilicensing, iand iinsurance.

The idamages ifor ilost iearnings iand icommissions ifor ithe iperiod ithat iMcCune iwas iunemployed ialone iamount ito iover i$23,000. iIn iaddition, iMcCune's iformer iannual isalary iof i$20,000 iper iyear iplus ia icommission iof i7 ipercent iof i$216,000 i($18,000 iper imonth itimes i12 imonths) iwas iin iexcess iof i$35,000. iThis iis ifar imore ithan iMcCune's iannual isalary iof i$15,000, iwhich ihe iwas ireceiving iat ithe itime iof itrial. iSee iBloomfield iv. iPinn, i84 iNeb. i472, i121 iN.W. i716 i(1909) i(holding ithat iin ia idefamation iaction iprobable ifuture iinjury imay ibe itaken iinto iconsideration iin ifixing ithe iamount iof ithe idamages). iTo ithis imust ibe iadded iMcCune's ilost ifringe ibenefits iplus ihis iloss iof ireputation iand imental isuffering. iIn iview iof ithe ifact ithat ithe iforegoing ievidence imore ithan iadequately isupports ithe iverdict, iwe ineed inot iconsider iwhether iother ispecial iharm isuffered iby ithe iplaintiff iwas ithe iproximate iresult iof iNeitzel's istatements.

After ireviewing ithe irecord, iwe iconclude ithat ithe iverdict iof i$25,350 idoes inot ishock ithe ijudicial iconscience iand ithat ithe iverdict iwas inot ithe iresult iof ipassion, iprejudice, imistake, ior isome iother imeans inot iapparent iin ithe irecord. iThus, ithe itrial icourt iabused iits