Skip to main content
· 6/15/1906

Abraham v. Baldwin

Citations

  • 52 Fla. 151

Syllabus

<p>1. Spoken words falsely imputing to another a criminal offense are actionable per se and the law presumes malice in their utterance; therefore, it is not necessary in such a case for the plaintiff in an action for slander to prove express malice, unless the words as spoken constitute a privileged communication.</p> <p>2. A communication, although it contains criminating matter, is privileged when made in good faith upon any subject in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a right or duty, if made to a person having a corresponding interest, right or duty, and made upon an occasion to properly serve such right, interest or duty, and in a manner and under circumstances fairly warranted by the occasion and the duty, right or interest, and not so made as to unnecessarily or unduly injure another, or to show express malice.</p> <p>3. The subject in relation to. which a communication was made may be privileged, yet a communication made upon that subject may not be privileged. If the restraints and qualifications imposed by law upon the publicity to be given such communications be disregarded, the communication is not privileged. If reasonable bounds be exceeded in making the communication, or if the communication be made knowing it to be false, malice might be inferred which would destroy the privilege.</p> <p>4. In an action for slander the burden of proving a plea that the communication was privileged is on the defendant. When it is established or conceded that the communication was privileged, the burden is then cast upon the plaintiff to show that the words were uttered from an improper motive, and not for a reason that would otherwise render them privileged.</p> <p>5. Whether slanderous words uttered are a privileged communication depends upon the circumstances under which they were uttered; and whether or not the facts and circumstances when conceded establish the privilege, is a question of law for the court; but when the

Judges: Cockrell, Except, Hocker, Parkhill, Shackleford, Stated, Taylor, Whitfield

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.