Hartmann v. Winchell
New York Court of Appeals
1ConcurrenceFuld, J.
Though I concur in the conclusion reached — that defendant’s utterance over the radio is actionable per se, without allegation or proof of special damage — I cannot agree with the court’s rationale. It impresses me as unreal to have liability turn upon the circumstance that defendant read from a script when, so far as appears from the complaint before us, none of his listeners saw that script or, indeed, was even aware of its existence. As I see it, liability; cannot 1 be determined here without first facing and deciding the basic question whether defamation by radio, either with or without a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Pollard v. LyonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Ostrowe v. LeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Oppenheim v. . KridelNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Brown v. Paramount Publix Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.