endomorphosis/Caselaw_Access_Project_JSON

1"{\"id\": \"2226033\", \"name\": \"BEAUMONT v. BROWN\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Beaumont v. Brown\", \"decision_date\": \"1983-05-04\", \"docket_number\": \"Docket No. 52713\", \"first_page\": \"464\", \"last_page\": \"468\", \"citations\": \"125 Mich. App. 464\", \"volume\": \"125\", \"reporter\": \"Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.\", \"court\": \"Michigan Court of Appeals\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Michigan\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-10T20:03:19.841867+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"Before: Danhof, C.J., and Bronson and Wahls, JJ.\", \"parties\": \"BEAUMONT v BROWN\", \"head_matter\": \"BEAUMONT v BROWN\\nDocket No. 52713.\\nSubmitted January 7, 1983, at Detroit. \\u2014\\nDecided May 4, 1983.\\nLeave to appeal applied for.\\nRobert A. Beaumont brought an action for damages for invasion of privacy against Barry C. Brown and Arthur J. Zink, Jr. The allegations were based upon remarks contained in a letter written by defendant Zink, the personnel director of plaintiff\\u2019s employer, in regard to plaintiff\\u2019s employment. Judgment was entered on a jury verdict of no cause of action, Ingham Circuit Court, James R. Giddings, J. Plaintiff appeals. Held:\\n1. A jury question on whether the disclosed facts were private, embarrassing ones precluded a directed verdict. The trial court properly denied plaintiff\\u2019s motion for a directed verdict.\\n2. Plaintiff\\u2019s allegation of error in the jury instructions is not properly before the Court of Appeals, as plaintiff has failed to point out the alleged instruction to which he objects.\\n3. The trial court did not err in allowing testimony regarding the motivations of defendants in making the statements complained of.\\n4. Plaintiff\\u2019s other claims are without merit or are not properly before the Court.\\nAffirmed.\\n1. Privacy \\u2014 Public Disclosure \\u2014 Directed Verdict.\\nA directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff is precluded in an action for invasion of privacy based upon the public disclosure of private facts where a jury question exists as to whether the facts disclosed were private, embarrassing ones.\\n2. Appeal \\u2014 Jury Instructions \\u2014 Presenting Issue.\\nAn issue regarding jury instructions is not properly presented for review where the appellant has not quoted or cited the alleged jury instruction to which he objects; the Court of Appeals will not speculate on which instructions the appellant finds objectionable.\\nReferences for Points in Headnotes\\n62 Am Jur 2d, Privacy \\u00a7 13.\\n75 Am Jur 2d, Trial \\u00a7\\u00a7 463, 467, 521.\\n5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error \\u00a7\\u00a7 623, 891.\\n5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error \\u00a7\\u00a7 692-696.\\n3. Appeal \\u2014 Questions Considered on Appeal.\\nOrdinarily no point will be considered by the Court of Appeals which is not set forth in or necessarily suggested by the parties\\u2019 statement of questions involved as set forth in their briefs (GCR 1963, 813.1).\\nWilliam L. Mackay, for plaintiff.\\nFarhat, Burns, Story & Stafford, P.C. (by Vittorio E. Porco and Richard C. Kraus), for defendants.\\nBefore: Danhof, C.J., and Bronson and Wahls, JJ.\", \"word_count\": \"1160\", \"char_count\": \"7184\", \"text\": \"Per Curiam.\\nPlaintiff appeals as of right from a judgment of no cause of action on his complaint for damages caused by an alleged invasion of privacy. We affirm.\\nPlaintiffs complaint was filed in 1973. Defendants' motions for summary judgment were denied. The denial was appealed to this Court, which reversed in Beaumont v Brown, 65 Mich App 455; 237 NW2d 501 (1975). This Court held that summary judgment should have been granted on the issues of publication (or disclosure) and whether or not the disclosed facts were \\\"private\\\" ones. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that summary judgment on these issues was improper. 401 Mich 80; 257 NW2d 522 (1977). The case was remanded to this Court to consider the remaining issues in defendants' motion for summary judgment. In an unpublished opinion, this Court affirmed the original denial of defendants' motions for failure to raise the specific claims below (Docket No. 77-4976, decided June 13, 1978). This appeal follows a 19-day jury trial which resulted in a verdict of no cause of action. The facts which gave rise to plaintiffs claim are aptly described in the Supreme Court's opinion, supra.\\nWe agree with defendants that most of plaintiffs claims of error result from a misunderstanding of the prior opinions of this Court and the Supreme Court. Plaintiff claims, in essence, that the Supreme Court made findings of fact in its opinion which bound the jury in the subsequent trial. The Supreme Court's discussion, however, was limited to two issues. The Court decided that summary judgment, GCR 1963, 117.2(3), was inappropriate on the question of public disclosure. It also stated, in response to this Court's opinion, that certain facts could be found by a jury to be \\\"private\\\". It did not make any findings of fact and did not rule, as a matter of law, in plaintiffs favor on any element of the claimed tort.\\nWe begin by rejecting plaintiff's claim that his motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted. At the very least, a jury question on whether the disclosed facts were private, embarrassing ones precluded a verdict from being directed.\\nPlaintiff claims that the trial judge incorrectly held that defendant Brown had a qualified privilege and instructed the jury thereon. Plaintiff has not properly presented this issue for our review, because he has failed to quote, or cite, the alleged instruction to which he objects. Clearly, defendant Brown was entitled to the protection of a privilege qualified to fit the occasion. See 3 Restatement Torts, 2d, \\u00a7 593, 594, 652G, pp 261, 263, 401. We decline, however, to speculate on which instructions plaintiff finds objectionable. Any error in the instructions regarding defendant Brown was al most certainly harmless, since the jury found that defendant Zink was not liable, despite the holding that defendant Zink had no conditional privilege. Plaintiff argues that the denial of his motion for a new trial, based on a charge that the jury's verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evidence, was an abuse of discretion. We find no abuse of discretion; the jury could easily have found for defendants based on the evidence.\\nPlaintiff objects to several statements made by defense counsel in closing argument. Although we find one statement (re subjects taught in law school) improper, plaintiff's objection to it was sustained. We find no error.\\nFinally, plaintiff makes numerous objections to the trial court's rulings on evidentiary matters. We have reviewed the record at length and find little merit in these objections. Defendants' motivations were relevant, because the key issue in the case was whether defendants' actions furthered a legitimate purpose. Plaintiff could not preclude the jury from considering defendants' state of knowledge in assessing his claim. Reasonableness is especially important in assessing a claim of qualified privilege. Although the trial judge ultimately ruled (incorrectly, we think) that defendant Zink had no qualified privilege, the testimony concerning the reasons for defendant Brown's actions was relevant to his claim of qualified privilege. The circumstances surrounding the letter were also relevant to the questions of injury and public disclosure.\\nThe many remaining claims are without merit, concern errors which were clearly harmless or cannot be reviewed for failure to advance them specifically at trial. To the extent that any claims of error made in appellant's brief are not ad dressed here, we accept no blame. The attention of the parties is directed to the last sentence of GCR 1963, 813.1, which states, \\\"[ojrdinarily no point will be considered which is not set forth in or necessarily suggested by the statement of questions involved\\\".\\nAffirmed. Costs to appellees.\"}"