Bohan v. Record Publishing Co.
Before: Smith
Synopsis
Libel per se—Accusation op Arson.—A publication in a newspaper falsely intimating that the proprietor of a business establishment had set fire to his premises and that the fire officials had decided to arrest him if another fire occurred there is libelous per se.
Id.—Damages—Injury to Business.—The sole proprietor of a business conducted by a firm name, who is libeled under his firm name in such a manner as to affect him personally, is not limited to the recovery of such damages as resulted from the injury to his business.
Id.—Presumption op Damages.—Damages to a person's reputation, fame, and credit are presumed to result from the publication of a libel per se.
Id.—Presumption op Malice.—In an action to recover damages for the publication of a libel per se malice is presumed, and, if exemplary damages are not claimed, the fact that the publication was made without any ill-will towards the plaintiff, but in good faith and believing it to be true, cannot be considered in mitigation of damages.
Id.—Instructions—Evidence.—The refusal to give instructions not warranted by any evidence in the record is not error.
SMITH, J.
The plaintiff, who was the sole proprietor, owner, and manager of the establishment known as the Bohan Paint Company, sued the defendant for a libel published in its journal, The Los Angeles Record, and recovered a verdict and judgment for the sum of five hundred dollars. The defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
[430]
The libel complained of is as follows:
“Another fire will cause their arrest.
“During the last forty days there have been three mysterious fires in the rear of the Bohan Paint Company on Broadway, near Sixth, or in the alley very close thereto. Three times has the fire department responded to alarms in that neighborhood and each time arrived just in time to prevent disastrous fires.
-“A month ago policeman Mike Holleran while covering his beat early in the morning noticed flames in the rear of the store occupied by the paint company. When he went into the rear of the place the flames were making rapid headway and he summoned the fire department. There were a number of oil barrels in the rear of the yard, but
the proprietor
of the establishment denied that there was any oil' in them.
“However, the fire would have been a disastrous one had not Holleran acted promptly.
“Yesterday afternoon there was another fire in the rear of' the paint shop. It burned some time but the department again checked the flames. Many of the boxes and barrels,, however, were burned.
“This morning the department was again summoned. A bonfire was burning in the rear yard of a hardwood frame factory next door and the owners of that plant did not know how the fire started. When Captain Lennon arrived he noticed the ashes from another bonfire near the fence in the rear of the paint shop. This fire had undoubtedly burned out during the night.
“In explaining the fire of yesterday afternoon the paint firm says that some oil-soaked sawdust was left in the rear yard and that spontaneous combustion was the result.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)