Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesappealoverruled
plaintiffdefendantappeal

Related Cases

Boyd v. Bulala, 877 F.2d 1191, 58 USLW 2004
View Case »
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 740 F.3d 1284, 42 Media L. Rep. 1186, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 500, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 627
View Case »
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420, 601 A.2d 633, 60 USLW 2620, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,060
View Case »
Thomas ex rel. Gramling v. Mallett, 285 Wis.2d 236, 2005 WI 129, 701 N.W.2d 523
View Case »
Elgin v. Bartlett, 994 P.2d 411, 1999 CJ C.A.R. 6261
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Thompson v. Adelberg & Berman, 181 Ky. 487, 205 S.W. 558, 3 A.L.R. 1594

Facts

Mary Thompson, a widow, purchased a suit for her son from Adelberg & Berman, Inc. but failed to pay the full amount. In November 1916, the company placed cards on her property indicating that their collector had visited for payment, which caused her significant humiliation and damage to her reputation. Thompson claimed this act was malicious and sought damages for libel.

Plaintiff says that on or about April, 1916, she purchased for her son a suit of clothes from defendant company's store in Covington, Kentucky… causing her great mental pain and humiliation, and affecting her good name injuriously, to her damage in the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00).

Issue

Did the actions of Adelberg & Berman, Inc. in placing cards on Thompson's property constitute libel?

Did the actions of Adelberg & Berman, Inc. in placing cards on Thompson's property constitute libel?

Rule

Written or printed words are considered libelous per se if they have a natural and reasonable tendency to degrade or disgrace a person, or to render them odious, ridiculous, or contemptible in the eyes of the public.

It is sufficient if they have a natural and reasonable tendency to degrade or disgrace him, or to render him odious, ridiculous, or contemptible in the estimation of the public.

Analysis

The court analyzed the placement of the cards, noting that they were conspicuously displayed around Thompson's home, making them visible to the public. The court concluded that the intent behind the publication was to coerce payment by publicly shaming Thompson, which aligned with the definition of libelous per se. Therefore, the demurrer to the petition should have been overruled.

Viewing the transaction in the light of this fact, it cannot be doubted that defendant's real purpose was to coerce the payment of its debt by publishing plaintiff's delinquency, and thus disgracing her in the eyes of the public.

Conclusion

The court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, indicating that the publication was libelous.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Mary Thompson prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the actions of Adelberg & Berman, Inc. constituted libel, warranting further proceedings.

On appeal, the court reversed the decision, finding that the publication was indeed libelous.

You must be