TOV Injury and Safety Blog

Defamation and malicious prosecution claims are dismissed; conversion reinstated

Joseph S. Ajlouny and Ali Bajrami became involved in a despicable incident involving sex with a 14-year old girl. Eventually, Ajlouny filed a civil action against Bajrami, accusing him of defamation, malicous prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conversion of items of personal property.  All but the conversion claim were dismissed by the trial court, and the dismissal was upheld on appeal. The court concluded that Ajlouny had not adequately supported his claims with admissible evidence.

Defamation case against media defendant is rejected where published report was "mean-spirited" but essentially true

Michael Williams sued WJBK-TV, its parent company and reporter, arguing that it defamed him with falsehoods contained in a "Hall of Shame" portrayal.  The television station had impugned Williams by portraying him, he alleged, in a false light:  suggesting that he wrote a successful book on the Obama election but failed to pay his printer and wrote an NSF check to cover the printing costs.  Williams argued that while he had previously bounced checks to the printer, the Obama-book check was bounced through a credit union error.  The court reviewed the facts and concluded that even though the report was "mean spirited" and contained "minor inaccuracies" it was "substantially true" and therefore not actionable.  Williams' claim was dismissed. The court did reject the TV station's request for sanctions, holding that Williams' claim "was not devoid of arguable legal merit."

Abuse of process arising out of quite title action is dismissed; sanctions awarded

J. Edward Kloian sued Jesse O'Jack, after O'Jack successfully quited title to his client's property in a civil action opposed by Kloian.  Kloian, after losing the quiet title action, sued O'Jack for damages, claiming abuse of process, malicious prosecution, infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages.  The Court noted that O'Jack's quiet title action had been filed in reliance on an independent title company's analysis and that it was successful.  That rendered Kloian's civil suit all of the things he claimed to criticize in O'Jack's action.  The suit was dismissed and sanctions were awarded as there was no reasonable basis for Kloian's action.

Doctor cannot sue for implied defamation

General Motors sent a notice to its employees indicating that it would no longer honor disability slips from a list of ten physicians, including Athar Siddiqui, an Internal Medicine Specialist.  Although the Notice stated that it was not accusing the doctors of incompetence and that employees could still treat with the doctors, the tenor of the notice clearly implied that the doctors were guilty of some form of incompetence or dishonesty.  Siddiqui demanded a retraction and when he didn't get it, he sued.  He argued that GM was guilty of implied defamation and intentional interference with a business relationship.

Court upholds dismissal of woman's claim of illegal conversion/seizure of car and cash

Michigan First Credit Union sued Barbara Smith after she publicly claimed that the Credit Union had illegally seized her car annd $40,000.00 from her Credit Union account.  The Credit Union sued for defamation after Smith publicly protested in front of the Credit Union's office, and Smith counter-sued for conversion, arguing that the credit union illegally repossessed her car and seized the cash in her account.  A succession of judges and courts were forced to rule on the complicated and highly-emotionally charged series of transactions, and Smith's claims of unfair treatment within the court system.  Ultimately her counter-claim was dismissed on procedural grounds, at least in part because she was acting without benefit of counsel.

Defamation claim dismissed for lack of specificity in pleadings

Mark Dobronski sued Robert MacDowell and the Southern Michigan Railroad Society, claiming that they had defamed him and failed to comply with an existing settlement agreement including a non-disparagement clause.  Dobronski's suit was dismissed by the lower court, after it concluded there was no question of fact with regard to the Defendants' claim that MacDowell was not a director of the Society.  Dobronski appealed.

Court rejects jurisdiction over Florida resident's abuse of process

The Court of Appeals ruled that the Michigan "long-arm" statute did not grant Michigan Court's jurisdiction over a Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff's claim that the Plaintiff and  another party conspired to commit an abuse of process.  Defendant Zalcberg claimed that Plaintiff Yoost's lawsuit was financed by the Florida resident, that it was a frivolous claim pursued for a malicious purpose, that the Counter-Defendant financed and "controlled" the Michigan lawsuit, and that Plaintiff had never read the Complaint before filing it.  Even though the parties admitted that the alleged wrong-doer was paying the legal expenses of Plaintiff's claim and the Plaintiff testified that he could not remember reading the Complaint, the Court held that the Counter-Plaintiff's evidence was not adequate to rebut the Counter-Defendant's affidavit claiming no improper involvement.  Since the Court ruled that the Plaintiff had not supported a prima facie case of abuse of process, it concluded that the "long-arm statute" did not confer jurisdiction on the court to address "the doing or causing an act to be done...in the state..."

Defendant loses appeal seeking sanctions for "frivolous" defamation claim

George W. Crawford managed to secure the dismissal of Georgia Ruth Crawford-Cambell's defamation claim, but appealed when the lower court did not agree that the claim was frivolous.  He argued that the one-year statute of limitations had run and that his sister had no reasonable basis to believe that her claims were well-founded.  The Court examined the pleadings of this and that prior litigation between the siblings and concluded that the trial court got it right:  the case should be dismissed, but was not frivolous when it was filed.

Defamation suit dismissed based on immunity applicable to judicial proceedings

Parviz Daneshgari sued Jerome Greenbaum and others for defamation.  He argued that statements contained in a 2007 lawsuit against him created "the obvious implication that Daneshgari is a terrorist, or someone who supports terrorism."  The Court noted that unless statements contained in judicial proceedings are actually irrelevant and immaterial to the pending lawsuit, they are absolutely privileged.  Since the statements to which Daneshgari objected were germane to the plaintiff's underlying request for a Temporary Restraining Order, the makers were immune from any claim of defamation.

Assault case is dismissed after "victim" pleads guilty to filing a false police report

When a neighborhood dispute  resulted in the filing of a PPO, things got progressively worse for a time.  The family that obtained the PPO attempted to serve it on the neighbor, who ran into a garage and called police, claiming an assault on his partner.  Unbeknownst to the complaining party, the man serving the PPO had arranged to video the incident from his home.  After viewing the video, police charged the "victim" with filing a false police report, and she was convicted. 

Companion of shoplifter cannot sue for false arrest

Zena Najor was originally arrested, along with her companion, after a cell phone was stolen from a retail store.  The prosecutor ultimately concluded that he could not prove that Najor was involved in the theft and dismissed the charges against her. She then sued for false arrest and imprisonment. 

A defamation/libel claimant gets a rare win

 Dawn Dubuc sued  Dr. Adel El-Magrabi and Qualified Medical Examiners after she was terminated from her right to disability payments from Ford Motor Company.  Dubuc had suffered a head injury and orthopaedic injuries in a motor vehicle collision, allegedly rendering her disabled.  She alleged that the physician defamed her by cutting short her "independent" medical examination and reporting to the employer that she was uncooperative.  Ford Motor's insurer then stopped her disability benefits.  The Court of Appeals had dismissed her claim, even though her tape-recording of the IME demonstrated that while she was cooperative and forthcoming, the doctor was "discourteous and impatient."

Defamation suit arising out of local political controversy is dismissed

Derith Smith won a verdict against Noel Flohe, Charles Stewart, George Preston and others, after they allegedly smeared her name in a mailing campaign that made use of a public report that contained factual untruths and inaccuracies.   The case was appealed, and  last year the Michigan Supreme Court ordered the Appeals Court to reevaluate Smith's claims. 

Hospital and director of medical education are immune from liability for defamation

Steven Woodward was a fifth-year medical student at American University of Antigua when he ws placed in a clinical rotation at Trinity Health-Michigan.  An administrator  at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital send a memorandum to AUA describing Woodward's  "lack of professionalism and poor communication skills."   In response AUA dismissed Woodward from its program and he sued for libel per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. 

The Court upheld the dismissal of Woodward's case against the school, pointing to an established deference to the academic judgment of academic professionals in making genuine academic decisions.    It also upheld the dismissal of the tort claim against Trinity, finding that the Trinity administrator enjoyed qualified privilege and  immunity for her good faith evaluation of Woodward's performance.  Absent evidence of actual malice, the plaintiff cannot sue for these "unpublished" comments  that are inherent in the parties' relationship.

School employees who report assault cannot be sued for malicious prosecution or defamation

Jamie Bradley sued the Detroit Public School and several employees after an altercation that occurred at the end of a meeting involving his son.   The son's teacher, Shawn Grant, claimed that Bradley struck her pregnant abdomen as he was angrily leaving the meeting.  The assault was reported to the police and Bradley was prosecuted.  When Bradley secured a "not guilty" verdict, he sued the school and its employees for malicious prosecution, alleging defamation and other theories of liability. 

Not a constitutional violation for Wal Mart to treat kids like shoplifters, without evidence

The parents of five black kids sued Wal Mart because two Assistant Managers essentially harrassed the kids out of the store.  The kids claimed they were "profiled" and harassed by employees and security police until they left.  The Wal Mart employees argued that the kids' activities followed a "pattern of recent shoplifting incidents" and then threatened the employees who were "investigating" them.  The Court of Appeals held that the black families had not documented a violation of the Civil Rights Act, even though "no one reported seeing [the kids] attempting to steal any merchandise."

Band Director cannot sue for defamatory statements of School Superintendent

During an inspection and testing of school computers, the Superintendent of Bad Axe Public Schools and the IT representative found that the long-time band director's work station and password had been utilized to visit websites containing "objectionable material."  The Superintendent then allegedly falsely accused the band director of inappropriate conduct.  He told School Board members that the director viewed and kept pornography; he told at least one parent that the director viewed  pornography on his school computer and drank beer with students outside class; and he repeated these claims at an open school board meeting. 

The band director resigned but sued the Superintendent, James Wencel, for defamation and invasion of privacy. The band director's suit was dismissed, and the dismissal was upheld in the Court of Appeals.  The Court held that the director was essentially estopped from criticizing the statements made at the School Board meeting  because he was offered the option of a closed session and refused.  With regard to the other defamatory statements made to school board members, the Court ruled that the Superintendent, as the highest executive official of the school system, enjoyed absolute immunity with regard to statements made within his executive function.   The Court would grant immunity even to statements made with actual malice, if they fell within the Superintendent's duties.

Business cannot sue competitor over statements that were opinion or substantially true

The Hantz Group sued two individuals and the Sterling Agency after the Defendants objected to the Hantz Group conducting  marketing activities at Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic parish in Grosse  Pointe Woods.  The Defendants wrote to their parish, claiming that the Defendants were using their professional soccer team, Detroit Ignition, as a marketing tool [a "cover"] to secure access to potential future clients.  The Defendants also claimed that Hantz had been fined approximately $700,000.00 over "charges" of fraud and misrepresentation.  The Plaintiff argued that it had been defamed and that the Defendants had violated the law by interfering with its legitimate business expectations.

Persons arrested at murder scene but later exonerated cannot sue Mayor for televised comments

Franklin Smith, Brandon Pannell and two other young men sued the Mayor of the City of Taylor for defamation.  One of the men, Devin Plummer, was originally fingered by a witness as the shooter, and police alleged that he confessed.  The others were present at the shooting and arrested as accomplices.  They were later exonerated when police identified and convicted a fifth man of the shooting.  After the four men were released, their families appeared at a City Council meeting to demand an apology. 

Doctor's defamation claim against employer is dismissed

Intercare Community Health Network of Van Buren County hired a family practitioner, Dr. Frengell, M.D., tp staff its community clinic in 2003.  In 2006, she was criticized for her care of a hepatitis C patient and the the director of the clinic initiated a file review of her patients.  In 2007, it concluded that she prescribed too many controlled substances to a particular patient--and perhaps to others--and fired her.  It also reported her to the National Practitioner Data Bank.  She sued, claiming defamation.  One year after filing it, InterCare "voided" its report to the data bank. 

Lab is immune from liability for falsely reporting plaintiff positive for HIV and Hepatitis B

The Detroit Biomedical Laboratories confused the blood sample of Amira Abouhassan with someone else's sample, and reported that she was positive for HIV and Hepatitis B.  After surviving the scare of her life and establishing that she was in fact negative for these conditions, Amira sued the Lab for defamation, tortious interference with a business relationship and negligence.  Not surprisingly, Judge Henry Saad and another Judge rejected her claim and found the lab immune from suit.  We say "not surprisingly" because Judge Saad never saw an insurance defense that he didn't like.

"Prime" --but wrong-- suspect cannot sue for defamation

Plaintiff Wilson sued the Sparrow Health System and the Lansing Athletic Club for defamation.  As the Club was closing on a night in August of 2006, a man exposed himself to two lifeguards at the pool.  They reported the incident, and the Club showed them file photographs of the 16 male "members" who had checked in that evening.  [We don't know how literally to interpret that statement in the opinion.]  The Plaintiff was incorrectly identified as the perpetrator and a "prime suspect" until another man confessed to this and a second, similar incident.  In the interim, the Club distributed a new set of procedures to follow in the event of similar incidents and identified the Plaintiff as the "prime suspect."  When the Plaintiff was cleared of the charges, he sued for defamation.  The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of his claim, pointing out that the reports to the police were subject to complete immunity, having been made in good faith.  Further, the subsequent identification of the Plaintiff as the "prime suspect" in the previous incident was not defamatory because it was true.

Court of Appeals refuses to hold IME physician accountable for negligence

Dawn Dubuc was a Ford Motor employee when she suffered orthopaedic injuries and a closed head injury in a motor vehicle collision.  About a year later she decided that she could not continue to work and began to draw disability.  After a number of months, Ford sent her to its Independent [huh--if you believe that, we've got some land in a Florida swamp to sell you...] Medical Examiner, Dr. Adel Ali El-Magrabi.  Dubuc's attorney accompained her to the examination solely to observe the "history" given to the doctor.  The Doctor felt that Dubuc was not answering cogently and terminated the IME.  In response, Ford discontinued her disability benefits and required her to report to work within five business days.  She sued Dubuc for defamation and tortious interference with her employment relationship.

Court upholds jury verdict on assault; throws out defamation claim

Shahn Farokhrany sued Marlin Jackson alleging that Jackson assaulted him.  Jackson counter-sued for defamation, claiming that Farkokhrany's original claim that he was struck with a beer bottle caused injury to Jackson's reputation and interfered with his NFL draft standing.  The jury refused to award damages for the assault, and instead awarded damages to Jackson for defamation, and Farokhrany appealed.

Michigan Supreme Court addresses Leelanau County defamation case

Derith Smith filed suit against several political opponents after they sent an anonymous mailing to several hundred Leelanau residents, containing a report from Smith's prior employment that had incorrectly attributed illegal actions to Ms. Smith.  Smith achieved a small verdict against Donald Barrows, John Stanek and Noel Flohe on the basis that they demonstrated actual malice in mailing out defamatory claims that they should have known had not been verified. 

Defamation action against Township Treasurer is dismissed

The plaintiff, John Underhill, was hired as the Township Attorney for Burt Township to investigate issues of improper income tax withholding by the Township Treasurer, James Seibert.  After an investigation, no criminal charges were filed against Seibert, who then told the Marquette Mining Journal that he had been the victim of a "witch hunt," carried out by "King John Underhill" and the township supervisor, who "delayed reporting the results of the audit and fed the people distorted information, half truths, no truths and downright lies in order to justify their existance [sic]." The Journal published Seibert's statement.

Employer's expression of opinion is no basis for claim alleging "tortious interference"

David Kocenda sued the City of Troy and a number of individuals for "tortious interference with a business or contractual relationship."  His attorneys apparently confused the latter two claims, but the Court of Appeals still addressed the underlying issue, after his claim was dismissed by the lower court.  Kocenda argued that he lost a job in Florida because he was defamed by City officials when they were contacted as references.  The Court of Appeals held that his case was properly dismissed because the statements attributed to Troy officials were matters of opinion and not actionable, either under this theory or as defamation.  Further, the Court held that Kocenda had not documented that the City's opinions were the basis for losing the Florida job offer, nor had he documented his claims of malice.

Defamation claim by public figure dismissed for lack of proof of actual malice

Charles Nystrom sued three defendants alleging that they defamed him with allegations that he illegally paid Christmas bonuses to Barry County Central Dispatch employees for hours they had not worked.  The matter was investigated and no criminal charges were filed, however, Nystrom alleged that the defendants' statements in the local newspaper and in letters to the County Board constituted a conspiracy to defame him and to intentionally inflict emotional distress.  The trial court dismissed Nystrom's claim because he could not meet the higher threshold of "actual malice demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence" when comments are made about a public figure.  The Court of Appeals agreed and upheld the dismissal.  It also agreed with the lower court that there was no basis for Nystrom's claim to go to the jury as a fact-finder because there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Man wrongly accused of bank robbery cannot sue bank and employees

Thomas Kabala sued JP Morgan Chase Bank and several employees after he was wrongly identified in a photo line-up as the perpetrator of a recent armed robbery.  Criminal charges against him were dropped after he supplied multiple witnesses and an alibi, and Kabala sued the Defendants for defamation, "negligent identification," false arrest and under several other theories.  The civil claim was dismissed by the trial court, however, and the dismissal was upheld in the Court of Appeals this week. 

False arrest and battery charges dismissed

Police officers resonding to a report of a felony in progress found Jarrell Hart and Konrad Montgomery acting "furtively" in the parking lot of a Dearborn clothing store.  They refused to leave their vehicle on demand, and ultimately police tasered them and then removed them from the vehicle and arrested them.  Police found one weapon in the car and another on Montgomery. The men were charged with an unspecified crime, however, those charges were later dismissed by the court.   The men then filed suit against the police, alleging false arrest, false imprisonment,  battery and racial intimidation. 

Verdict against minister who acted with malice is upheld by Supreme Court

Judith Dadd attended an Assembly of God Church near Lansing where parishioners gather at the altar to be prayed over by the minister, one David R. Williams.  Apparently, if the "spirit moves them" enough when Williams prays over them, congregants fall over backward and collapse in a heap.   Ushers are present to cushion the fall, but their belief system holds that they won't suffer injury in any event.  Something went haywire for Dadd, however, who wasn't caught and suffered a head injury when she struck the floor. 

When Dadd asked the Church's insurance to help cover her medical expenses, it limited its assistance to the medical co-pay of $5,000.00.  Dadd then brought a civil claim alleging the ushers were negligent in not protecting her when she was "slain in the spirit" and fell over backwards.

Ohio adopts "tort reforms:" as in prior examples, no real impact on non-victims; no impact on health care costs

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, five years after adopting medical malpractice "reforms" [limitations on when patients can sue and what they can collect], the changes have not caused a reduction in health care costs as was advertised by politicians.   In its March 20th issue, the paper pointed out that in 2005 jury verdicts were limited to $250,000.00 in most cases, punitive damages were restricted and numerous procedural obstacles were adopted to eliminate non-meritorious cases.  Health care premiums have gone up by 19 percent over the succeeding four years.

Recent cases address liability of legislators for disparaging comments

In recent weeks, the Court of Appeals handed down two decisions bearing on the right of governmental actors to make stupid or ignorant comments which slander or defame other persons.  In one case, Shupa, et al v. Moceri, Wiecek, Kamp and the City of Warren, local attorneys sued several City Council members, arguing that comments in a public meeting were disparaging to the attorneys and defamatory.  The Court first noted that there is an absolute privilege for remarks made during legislative activities, but that this privilege "does not afford [a public official] an invitation to undertake an unrestricted slanderous campaign against whomever he pleases, concerning whatever he pleases." 

Court issues detailed ruling examining "right of privacy" and corporate bullying

Scott Dalley sued Dykema Gossett, Lincoln National LIfe Insurance and other defendants arguing that Lincoln's attorneys and agents had abused legal process and invaded his privacy through the mis-use of a Temporary Restraining Order [TRO].  Dykema represented Lincoln in a dispute with a third-party agent who sold Lincoln insurance.  It obtained a TRO prohibiting the third-party from deleting Lincoln information from its computers and authorizing Lincoln to copy the relevant data.  Dalley performed some information technology work for the third-party, and other clients, from his apartment. 

Credit Union's defamation judgment against woman who published alleged theft from account is overturned.

Barbara J. Smith argued that the Michigan First Credit Union stole $40,000.00 from her account, and produced a bank document that appeared to support her claim.  The Credit Union argued that the document was a forgery and that the money was never deposited in Smith's account.  The trial court dismissed Smith's action, despite her evidentiary claim that she had deposited the money and it had been taken without her permission.  The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the lower court for a jury to decide, noting that Smith's testimony created a question of fact and credibility to be resolved by the jury.

Two former employees win battle with "defamed" home health care provider

Evergreen Home Health Care sued two former employees (a nurse and a nurse aid) in an effort to punish them for criticizing the care given by Evergreen.  It alleged breach of a non-compete agreement, defamation and interference in its legal contracts with residents and their families.  It rejected mediation-proposed settlements and nominal settlement offers before its claims were ultimately dismissed by the trial court. 

Evergreen never produced a non-compete involving one of the former employees and the court deemed the other agreement "unreasonable" and unenforcible.  It concluded the suit was filed in retaliation for the employees' complaints reaching the office of the Attorney General and were in the nature of a "spite" or vengeance action--particularly given the fact that the employees had no insurance coverage and the suit appeared intended primarily to "ruin them financially."  The Court found no "significant, material" evidentiary support for Evergreen's claim and awarded the employees  sanctions in the form of costs and fees. 

The Court of Appeals upheld the decision, and agreed with the lower court that the action was frivolous. The higher court also returned the case to the lower court to explain why it had not awarded the employees' attorney the full amount of fees that they documented.  Given the attorney's 30+ years of experience, the lower court's failure to sanction his $200.00 per hour fee appeared to the Court of Appeals to be arbitrary on its face.

Father cannot sue government investigators who respond to abuse reports

Patrick McCarthy was involved in an ugly divorce and custody battle when his ten- and eleven-year old daughters made complaints of inappropriate sexual contact to their daycare provider.  The family was forced to undergo a thorough investigation by human services and police agencies and McCarthy was charged with 2d degree Criminal Sexual Conduct.  Just prior to the commencement of a criminal trial against McCarthy, the girls recanted their  claims,  and both the criminal case against McCarthy and the child protective proceeding were dismissed.  McCarthy then sued the agencies and the involved individuals, arguing that investigators should have known that the complaints arose out of the custody battle and dismissed them without an investigation.  The Court of Appeals rejected McCarthy's reasoning and concluded that the state actors were immune from liability because the girls' claims created "probable cause" for an investigation that was not motivated by malice.

Defamation claim is dismissed because mayor enjoys immunity for calling employee a "liar."

The mayor of Potterville in Eaton County became embroiled in a dispute with the City Treasurer and Deputy Treasurer, who criticized the city manager's bookkeeping practices.  The mayor, Julia Nelson, eventually called the Deputy Treasurer, Donna Hannahs a "liar" in an exchange questioning whether Hannahs had disclosed to another city employee that a closed meeting had been held at the last council meeting.  Hannahs was later fired after no wrongdoing was attributed to the city manager, and Hannahs sued Nelson for defamation.  The Court concluded that whether or not Nelson had defamed Hannahs by calling her a liar, the comment, as part of an ongoing public investigation, was cloaked in governmental immunity.  She was "the highest elected official of the city and acting in her legislative capacity as a member of the City Council when she made the challenged remark."

Wild party man can't sue the witnesses who complain to police

Michael Stephen Irish apparently does not lead a sedentary lifestyle.  Others who live on Algonquin Lake in Barry County complained to police that they needed protection from his "reckless behavior," which included "drinking and driving, drinking and boating, and...indecent exposure."  The cops charged him with disturbing the peace and indecent exposure, however, after a trial he was convicted only of the former charge.  Never one to retire to the basement, Irish then sued the neighbors for defamation, malicious prosecution and also under various other theories.  Ultimately, his claim was dismissed.  The trial judge and the appellate judges all agreed that the complaints by citizens to criminal authorities were entitled to absolute immunity.

Insulting letter isn't grounds for lawsuit if the "gist...is substantially accurate"

Carl Nicolet was fired by Brinks, Inc., after the ATMs he serviced experienced a number of unexplained cash "shortages/overages."  Nicolet's termination letter cited these shortages, explained Brinks' decision and his supervisor's loss of confidence in Nicolet's ability or willingness to perform his duties.  Nicolet filed suit alleging several theories, including intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with a business relationship, and that he was defamed by implication of theft.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Nicolet's suit, confirming that "if the gist of the article or the sting of the charge is 'substantially accurate,' a defendant cannot be liable."

Photographers may not be liable for improper publication of model's photos

Phenomenon Productions, Inc., an assumed name of photographers Toriano Treadwell and Anthony Thomas, signed a contract with Diamalynn Arnold to publish her pictures on a website they own.  The site is ostensibly used to garner publicity and contracts for models.  Eventually, however, Arnold found her likeness on another (allegedly racier) website operated by the photographers, a s0-called "street magazine" dedicated to illegal, underground conduct, and an advertisement ostensibly used for prurient purposes.  She sued claiming an invasion of privacy that portrayed her in a "false light" and also arguing that the defendants had illegally appropriated her likeness for commercial value.  The Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of all of her claims except the latter appropriation claim.

Man wrongfully convicted of rape cannot sue the victim

On Wednesday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Jeffrey Moldowan cannot sue the woman who incorrectly identified her ex-boyfriend as having participated in her Macomb County rape in 1990.  Moldowan, who spent 12 years in prison before his exoneration in 2003, filed suit against Jane Doe and several law enforcement officials as well as the City of Warren.  The appellate court ruled that even if the victim (who suffered permanent and serious injuries in the attack) lied to officers as part of their investigation, she was immune from her ex-boyfriend's lawsuit:  it concluded that rape victims must know that they can participate fully in a police investigation without concern over future civil liability. 

Quadraplegiac gets a new van under no fault rules.

Neil Begin was rendered a quadraplegiac in a motor vehicle collision while he worked for Michigan Bell Telephone.  Bell is self-insured for no fault and workers compensation.  It argued that since Begin drove a van before his injuries, it should not be required to provide him with a replacement van after his wore out; it relied upon the Engler majority's decision in the Griffith v. State Farm case, where the Court ruled that the no fault insurer was not required to compensate a seriously-injured accident victim for necessities that non-injured persons also require.

Proper venue for "per se" defamation case is location of original publication

Marcus Yono and the Suttons Pointe Development, L.L.C., sued the Leelanau Enterprise, alleging that an article about their Suttons Bay "Bay View" project had damaged Yono's and the corporation's reputation and caused cancellation of condo purchase agreements signed by residents of Livingston County.  Relying on medical malpractice cases holding that venue is properly placed where the "actual injury" is suffered, they attempted to secure a trial of the claim in Livingston County.

Complications of being "overcome by the spirit of the Lord"

Judith Dadd answered an "altar call" made by the pastor of her Eaton County Mount Hope Church during a leadership rally.  She was "overcome by the spirit of the Lord", fainted, and fell backwards striking her head.  She had apparently been overcome in this manner "over 100 times" during her membership in the church.  The pastor invited members of the congregation to make these altar calls and assured them that if they were "slain in the spirit" and collapsed, ushers were trained to catch them. 

When the church informed Dadd that it would not pay more than $5,000.00 in medical expenses, she filed suit, claiming a head injury and arguing that the Church should have fulfilled the pastor's promise to protect "overcome" parishioners.  Her pastor responded by suggesting she was faking and might be trying to commit insurance fraud (apparently he felt the spirit of the Lord had left her just as abruptly as it had overcome her). 

School board member's slander claim survives motion to dismiss

Julia Harvey sued fellow  Oak Park School Board member Alicia Jones, after Jones embarked on a campaign of criticism relating to Harvey's alleged mis-use of her position.  Among other claims, Jones alleged Harvey had improperly secured special hiring privileges for her husband, obtained special education privileges for her daughter and engaged in other illegal, unethical or unprofessional conduct.  Jones made these claims in Board Meetings, on a Detroit Free Press website and in a recall petition.   She defended the claim by alleging immunity based upon her school board responsibilities and privileges, and sought summary disposition of Harvey's defamation suit.

Verdict against police officers overturned

In Reed v. Sitarski and Smith, a quarter-million dollar jury verdict based on malicious prosecution, against the two arresting officers, was dismissed by a majority of the 3 judge Court of Appeals panel that reviewed it.  The majority threw out the verdict because the jury was not adequately instructed on malicious prosecution, even though the Defendants' attorney had approved the instructions given. 

Malicious prosecution, gross negligence and false imprisonment claims dismissed

A City of Detroit Police officer, Stephen Pardo, was charged with planting a gun on a criminal suspect.  The investigating officers interviewed one witness who appeared to corroborate the claim and the Prosecuting Attorney authorized the issuance of a warrant.  Shortly after Pardo was arrested, however, additional witnesses were interviewed, the suspect's claims were brought into disrepute and the charges against Pardo were dropped. 

Pardo filed suit, alleging that a proper and thorough investigation would have obviated any basis for charging him criminally.  The Court dismissed Pardo's claims on immunity grounds, finding that since probable cause existed for his arrest, he could not take legal action against the charging and investigating authorities--even if their investigation was negligent or inadequate.  Given the existence of an apparently corroborating witness for the complainant's allegations, there was "reasonable basis" to charge Pardo, even though that basis was later undermined.

Defamation, invasion of privacy claims dismissed

Patrick Morrissey's supervisor criticized him for conducting private business by cell phone during the work day.  The supervisor then reviewed copies of Morrissey's phone records, all sent to him for approval, before terminating Morrissey's employment.  Morrissey filed suit, claiming an invasion of privacy and defamation.  His claims were dismissed by a unanimous Court of Appeals panel that announced several holdings of interest .

Appellate court addresses defamation claims involving public figures

In the Leelanau County case Smith v. Anonymous, et al., the appellate court was asked to overturn a jury verdict rendered on behalf of a political candidate against her opponents.  Smith had demonstrated that a mailing sent to voters by the defendants inaccurately portrayed her employment history, and the jury rendered a modest defamation money award and demanded an apology.