Frank B. Hall & CO., INC. v. Buck

br FRANK B . HALL CO . V . BUCK AND THE

EMPLOYER '92S RIGHT AND DUTY TO DISCLOSE br

In Frank B . Hall Co . v . Buck , 678 S .W .2d 612 (Tex . App . 1984 , cert denied , 472 U .S . 1009 (1985 , Buck had worked for the Hall insurance agency . He was fired from that position . Afterwards , Buck found he could not get another position . Eventually , Buck hired a private investigator . The investigator contacted key people at the hall agency telling him that Buck was being considered for a position of considerable responsibility at his

firm . Eckart , the top officer at the Hall agency , met with the investigator and during his discussions called Buck '93a zero '94 '93a Jekyll and Hyde person '94 and '93a classical sociopath '94 He also accused Buck of stealing from the Hall agency . Other agency employees in interview with the investigator made similarly disparaging remarks , including comments that Buck had wrongfully brought materials from a prior employer to the Hall agency

Buck sued , raising various claims ,the most important of these being defamation . A jury found that Buck had been defamed . The jury ruled that this injury , Buck was entitled to compensatory damages of 600 ,000 Further , the jury decided that Buck was entitled to punitive damages of 1 .3 million , so that the million . The Hall agency appealed

An appeal of a case of this sort presents a frustrating situation for anyone trying to draw lessons from the case . The function of the appellate court is restricted to issues of law . This means that the appellate court must accept the facts as found by the jury , unless it finds from a review of the record that the evidence supporting a jury finding is so scant that no reasonable person could believe it . The appellate court is not permitted to question the facts anew

In this case , that restriction on the appellate courts function is very important . It had to affirm the findings of the jury , even if , had it been acting as a jury , it would have ruled differently . On appeal , the appellate court ruled that the jury could have found that by making Frank B . Hall Co . v . Buck and the Employer '92s Right and Duty to Disclose Page statements made to the private investigator , the Hall agency had '93published '94 these statements , that is had made the statements to a third party . The court ruled that the jury could have found that these statements were slanderous . In perhaps the weakest part of the opinion , the court struggle over the question of who had the burden of proof on the issue of truthfulness : did the defendant have the burden of proving that the statements were true , or did the plaintiff have the burden of proving that the statements were false . The court suggested that the burden was on the defendant to prove that the statements were false , and held that the jury could have found that the statements were false . The court also ruled...