Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hartmann v. Winchell

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 17, 1947Published

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

  1. Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. Pollard v. LyonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  3. Ostrowe v. LeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  4. Oppenheim v. . KridelNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  5. 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.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API