TACKET V. DELCO REMY DIVISION OF GENERAL MOTORS CORP. 937 F.2d 1201 (7th Cir. 1991) CASE BRIEF

TACKET V. DELCO REMY DIVISION OF GENERAL MOTORS CORP.

937 F.2d 1201 (7th Cir. 1991)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Delco (D) appealed a judgment which gave Tacket (P), an employee, damages for defamation.

FACTS: P sued D for defamation. D removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. P claimed that his reputation was irreparably damaged by a sign painted on the inside wall of D's plant. (TACKET TACKET WHAT A RACKET). The judge directed a verdict for the defense. The case was appealed and remanded. The district court was to decide: 1) whether General Motors published the sign by intentionally failing to remove it; 2) whether P took appropriate steps to attempt to have the sign removed; 3) whether the statement 'TACKET TACKET WHAT A RACKET' did, in fact, defame P; and 4) whether P suffered any damage as a proximate result of the publication of the statement. The case was tried to a jury before a different judge. P was a night superintendent and had to acquire wooden shipping crates. Ed Spearman, one of P's subordinates, suggested that 'S & T Specialties' provide the needed crates. P received requisition forms for the crates and processed them during off-duty hours. Both he and Spearman signed the forms. The union protested the 'out-sourcing' of work that Delco's own staff could have performed. The union also discovered that Spearman was the 'S', and suspected that P was the 'T', of 'S & T Specialties'. D promptly suspended both Spearman and P pending an investigation. Delco ultimately fired Spearman, but concluded that it had insufficient evidence to discharge P. At some point, a sign approximately 3' x 30' appeared inside the plant proclaiming the infamous rhyme 'TACKET TACKET WHAT A RACKET.' This sign stayed up for two to three days during Tacket's suspension. A second, smaller sign approximately 1' x 4' proclaiming the same message was stenciled on the inside wall of the plant and remained there for at least seven months. A psychologist diagnosed P with depressive neurosis. P was alienated, dysfunctional, and lacked energy and that condition was due to the small sign and noted that it affected his job performance. P got poor job performance ratings. The court instructed the jurors 1) if the sign were found to impute a crime or to prejudice him in his profession, then injury to his reputation would be established; or, 2) if the sign did not impute such things, then the jury was instructed that the plaintiff could recover only if 'special damages' were proven. Special damages were defined as the loss of something having economic or pecuniary value, or the loss of a benefit that has an indirect financial value to the plaintiff. Special interrogatories were given to the jury to aid their deliberations. P got a verdict for $100,000. The jury indicated on its special verdict form that the sign did not tend to damage P's reputation without regard to extrinsic circumstances, but that it did defame P when considered with other facts. The jury found that D intentionally and unreasonably failed to remove that sign (thereby 'publishing' it), and that P exercised proper care for the protection of his own interests. D then moved to set aside the verdict. The district court found that P had pleaded and proved special damages. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner