Mann v. Roosevelt Shop

41 So. 2d 894, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 892
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 5, 1949
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 41 So. 2d 894 (Mann v. Roosevelt Shop) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mann v. Roosevelt Shop, 41 So. 2d 894, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 892 (Fla. 1949).

Opinion

Action by Lottie Mann against Roosevelt Shop, Inc., a corporation trading and doing business as Radio Center, for slander. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed. On this appeal we review a judgment holding plaintiff's declaration bad. The action is for slander.

The plaintiff, a white woman, while in defendant's store, claims she was slandered by having the following language addressed to her by defendant's agent and employee while acting within the scope of employment:

"You are not as good as a Negro. I was hired here to see that Negros were not pushed around. Negroes have a kind, loving heart and you came from Georgia and you are not as good as a Negro."

"You are not good enough to associate with Negro women or sleep with a Negro man."

As a result of the spoken words plaintiff avers she was injured in her good name, fame and reputation and has been humiliated and brought into public scandal.

Plaintiff relies upon our opinion, Sharp v. Bussey, 137 Fla. 96, 187 So. 779, also 121 A.L.R. 1148, at page 1151, for a reversal of the judgment. In distinguishing these cases as we propose to do, it is well to re-examine some well-recognized authorities on the subject of defamation. The action of slander is to redress an injury to the reputation of a person. In that sense the injury to the individual is indirect or remote. Redress in the court does not extend to spoken words constituting a personal insult only. See Foundations of Legal Liability by Street, Vol. 1, page 285; Restatement of the Law of Torts, Chapter 24 — Defamation; 33 Am.Jur., Libel and Slander.

In the case at bar we have only the expression of an opinion relating to the plaintiff's social standing, whereas in the case of Sharp v. Bussey, supra, there was a direct and specific charge of a fact which, if true, would injure the plaintiff. In that respect the cases are essentially different. The case at bar presents a case of gross insult; however the law affords no redress for insult alone. See MacIntyre v. Fruchter, Sup., 148 N YS. 786.

We also call attention to the annotations in 121 A.L.R., page 1151, following the report of our case of Sharp v. Bussey.

It follows from what we have said the judgment is affirmed.

CHAPMAN, SEBRING and HOBSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gomez v. The City of Miami
S.D. Florida, 2023
Victor v. News & Sun-sentinel Co.
6 Fla. Supp. 2d 132 (Florida Circuit Courts, 1984)
Holmes v. Elks Club, Inc.
389 F. Supp. 854 (M.D. Florida, 1975)
Sacco v. Eagle Finance Corp. of North Miami Beach
234 So. 2d 406 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Kurtell & Co. v. Miami Tribune, Inc.
193 So. 2d 471 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Korbin v. Berlin
177 So. 2d 551 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Preston v. Winokur
177 So. 2d 367 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc.
100 So. 2d 396 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1958)
Walsh v. Miami Herald Publishing Co.
80 So. 2d 669 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1955)
Ross v. Gore
48 So. 2d 412 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 So. 2d 894, 1949 Fla. LEXIS 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mann-v-roosevelt-shop-fla-1949.