Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Springer v. Harwig

OPINION FILED MARCH 12, 1981.

JOHN SPRINGER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

ANTON HARWIG ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.



APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. LOUIS J. GILIBERTO, Judge, presiding.

MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

On May 5, 1978, plaintiff, John Springer, filed a complaint against defendants, Anton Harwig, the village of Palatine, and Paddock Publications, Inc., for allegedly libelous statements published in the Daily Herald on March 16, 1978. On July 5, 1978, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under section 48(1)(i) of the Civil Practice Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 110, par. 48(1)(i)) (hereafter Civil Practice Act). The trial judge granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

Plaintiff presents the following issues for review: (1) whether the allegedly libelous statements were capable of innocent construction; (2) whether defendants Harwig and the village of Palatine are protected by the qualified privilege to report a judicial proceeding; and (3) whether material triable issues of fact were present.

John Springer's complaint designated five statements which he claims to be false and defamatory. They are:

(1) "`VILLAGE SUES BUILDER ON BROKEN PLANS.

Village Mgr. Anton Harwig said this is the first of several lawsuits the village plans against developers who have reneged on their promises.'"

(2) "`Harwig said either Springer has failed to make certain public improvements or the developer's work does not meet village standards.'"

(3) "`The suit asks Springer to patch broken streets, repair curbs chipped during home building and replace trees that died after planting.'"

(4) "`The suit, filed in Cook County Circuit Court this week, asks that developer John Springer make certain public improvements or pay the village $50,000 so it can make them.'"

(5) "`Springer's promises were included in an annexation agreement approved by the village in the 1960s, when the subdivision in northeast Palatine was built.'"

Plaintiff's claim for damage alleged that the statements held him up to public hatred, ridicule, distrust, and contempt. Accordingly, plaintiff was injured in his reputation and in his business as a developer to the sum of $1,000,000.

Each of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss under the Civil Practice Act. On July 14, 1978, defendant Paddock moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds, inter alia, that the language contained in the newspaper report is protected and non-actionable under the Illinois privilege to report judicial proceedings; that the language contained in the newspaper report is protected and non-actionable as a matter of law under the neutral report privilege; and that the language contained in the newspaper report is non-actionable as a matter of law under the Illinois innocent-construction rule. On September 20, 1979, the trial judge granted defendants' motions to dismiss and judgment was entered in favor of all defendants. Plaintiff filed notice of appeal on October 17, 1979. Plaintiff did not appeal that portion of the order which sustained the motion of Paddock Publications, Inc., to dismiss the action.

Plaintiff contends that the published article is incapable of being innocently construed and is libelous per se.

• 1, 2 An action based on libel per se requires a serious charge of incapacity or misconduct in words so obviously and naturally hurtful that proof of their injurious character is unnecessary. A false statement is libelous per se if it imputes to the plaintiff (1) the commission of a crime; (2) infection of another with a loathsome disease; (3) unfitness or want of integrity in performing the duties of an office or employment; or (4) lack of ability in his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.