Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Barnes
This text of 443 So. 2d 1085 (Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Barnes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY and Kevin Dowling, Appellants,
v.
Dwight BARNES, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
*1086 Shutts & Bowen and John T. Kolinski and Sally M. Richardson, Miami, for appellants.
duFresne & Bradley and Amy Lehman and Elizabeth duFresne, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
We find that publication of slander can occur in intra-corporation communications. See: Glynn v. City of Kissimmee, 383 So.2d 774 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Drennen v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 328 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Arison Shipping Company v. Smith, 311 So.2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Restatement 2d of Torts, § 596. We do not read Pledger v. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 432 So.2d 1323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) to prohibit such a finding. We also find no error in this case in submitting the question of qualified privilege to a jury. Hartley & Parker, Inc. v. Copeland, 51 So.2d 789 (Fla. 1951); Abraham v. Baldwin, 52 Fla. 151, 42 So. 591 (1906); Riggs v. Cain, 406 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 3th DCA 1981); Lewis v. Evans, 406 So.2d 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
Therefore the final judgment on the jury verdict be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
443 So. 2d 1085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-bell-tel-tel-co-v-barnes-fladistctapp-1984.