Fordson Coal Co. v. Carter

3 Citing cases

  1. Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    151 S.W.3d 781 (Ky. 2005)   Cited 303 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that any privilege is forfeited if the "defendant steps outside the scope of the privilege, or abuses the occasion"

    See also McCall v. Courier-Journal Louisville Times Co., Ky., 623 S.W.2d 882, 884.Fordson Coal Co. v. Carter, 269 Ky. 805, 108 S.W.2d 1007, 1008 (1937). 1. defamatory language

  2. Dossett v. New York Mining and Manufacturing Co.

    451 S.W.2d 843 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 63 times
    Recognizing a privilege for "discussions and communications within the company which are necessary to [its] proper function"

    (citing cases)." Similar expressions were repeated in Fordson Coal Co. v. Carter, 269 Ky. 805, 108 S.W.2d 1007 (1937). A rule contrary to that expressed in the Newberry and Fordson cases was followed in actions for libel committed by employees of a corporation in Pennsylvania Iron Works Co. v. Henry Vogt Mach. Co., 139 Ky. 497, 96 S.W. 551, 29 KLR 861, 8 L.R.A., N.S., 1023 (1906) and Wells v. Payne, 141 Ky. 578, 133 S.W. 575 (1911).

  3. Edwards v. Kentucky Utilities Co.

    289 Ky. 375 (Ky. Ct. App. 1942)   Cited 5 times

    It is thus seen that there was more reason for a retraction or repudiation of that letter than there would be for the retraction or repudiation of the oral statement of an agent and by which the principal could not possibly have benefited. On the question of ratification by the principal of a libel or slander of its agents, see Fordson Coal Company v. Carter, 269 Ky. 805, 108 S.W.2d 1007; Pruitt v. Goldstein Millinery Co., 169 Ky. 655, 184 S.W. 1134; J. J. Newberry Company et al. v. Faulconer et al., 248 Ky. 59, 58 S.W.2d 217. The court held that certain facts relied on in the cases, supra, were insufficient to constitute ratification, which we think were as strong in favor of ratification as the facts in the present case.