{
  "id": 1755000,
  "name": "Louise Bariola FARRIS v. Tom H. TVEDTEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Farris v. Tvedten",
  "decision_date": "1981-11-02",
  "docket_number": "81-127",
  "first_page": "185",
  "last_page": "187",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "274 Ark. 185"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "623 S.W.2d 205"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "15 N.E. 2d 426",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.Y. 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.",
      "case_ids": [
        2032035
      ],
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ny/278/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "435 S.W. 2d 616",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10144258
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/435/0616-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 S.W. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1922,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 Ark. 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1358465
      ],
      "year": 1922,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/156/0084-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 Ark. 645",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1473322
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/211/0645-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 S.W. 257",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1911,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 Ark. 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1312287
      ],
      "year": 1911,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/100/0477-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 Ark. 582",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1464651
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/215/0582-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 3710,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.799,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.499063991349135e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6653061626372812
    },
    "sha256": "a8417f2bd1aa39ca526dc84b024f83e9029cafa1aea5e0551989be39781f694b",
    "simhash": "1:397f1a252d48c218",
    "word_count": 644
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:01:13.587143+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Louise Bariola FARRIS v. Tom H. TVEDTEN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThe issue in this case is whether a defamatory letter was \u201cpublished.\u201d The trial court granted a motion to dismiss holding that there had been no publication of the letter. For purpose of argument it has to be conceded that the letter was libelous.\nThe appellant, Mrs. Louise Bariola Farris, is a nurse who practices at the Chicot Memorial Hospital in Lake Village. The appellee, Tom H. Tvedten, is a doctor who practices at the same hospital. Dr. Tvedten dictated the letter in question to a stenographer. It was addressed to Mrs. Farris at Box 16, Jennie, Arkansas. The letter strongly criticized Mrs. Farris, implying that she had substituted medication thereby committing a criminal act.\nBy pleadings and arguments the sole question before the trial court was whether the letter was published and, if so, whether the publication occurred when Dr. Tvedten dictated the letter to a stenographer and when the letter addressed to Mrs. Farris was opened and read by her husband. The court ruled that there was no publication and we agree.\nIn a defamation case a libelous or slanderous statement must be published or communicated to a third person to be actionable. W. Prosser, The Law of Torts, \u00a7 113 (4th ed. 1971); Braman v. Walthall, 215 Ark. 582, 225 S.W. 2d 342 (1949). However, not every communication to a third person is deemed to be a publication. Some communications are protected by a qualified privilege; that is, the fact that a third party learns of the libelous matter is not necessarily publication. Unless there is an abuse of this qualified privilege, such as excessive or malicious publication, there is no publication in the eyes of the law. W. Prosser, supra, \u00a7 115; Braman v. Walthall, supra; Bohlinger v. Germainia Life Ins. Co., 100 Ark. 477, 140 S.W. 257 (1911). The statement by Dr. Tvedten to the nurse on its face was such a privileged statement since it was made by one with an interest or duty in a matter to another who had a like interest or duty. W. Prosser, supra, \u00a7 115; Braman v. Walthall, supra; Arkansas Associated Telephone Co. v. Blankenship, 211 Ark. 645, 201 S.W. 2d 1019 (1947).\nThe trial court found no abuse of the privilege in this case. The doctor and nurse worked in the same hospital. The letter was purely in reference to the appellant\u2019s performance at the hospital regarding medication practices in which both parties had some duty and interest. The letter was dictated to the doctor\u2019s stenographer, and that act alone did not amount to publication. W. Prosser, supra, \u00a7 115 n. 59; Polk v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 156 Ark. 84, 245 S.W. 186 (1922).\nThe fact that the husband opened and read a letter addressed to his wife was not deemed by the trial court to be publication. That was an act beyond the control of the writer and there is no evidence that Dr. Tvedten knew or could have foreseen anyone else would have opened the letter. There is no liability for publication when a sealed letter is sent to the plaintiff personally which is unexpectedly opened and read by another. W. Prosser, supra, \u00a7 113, n. 41; Barnes v. Clayton House Motel, 435 S.W. 2d 616 (Tex. Civ. App. 1968); Weidman v. Ketcham, 278 N.Y. 129, 15 N.E. 2d 426 (1938).\nThe parties by pleadings and briefs narrowed the argument to the issues we have discussed. The trial court ruled on that basis and we have recited the facts that we have. Having reviewed the record on that basis, we cannot say the trial court was clearly wrong.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert G. Bridewell, of Holloway br Haddock, for appellant.",
      "Charles Darwin Davidson, P.A., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Louise Bariola FARRIS v. Tom H. TVEDTEN\n81-127\n623 S.W. 2d 205\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 2, 1981\nRobert G. Bridewell, of Holloway br Haddock, for appellant.\nCharles Darwin Davidson, P.A., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0185-01",
  "first_page_order": 207,
  "last_page_order": 209
}