Tweet
Woman Sues Michigan Church After Getting Injured While 'Slain in the Spirit'
April 12, 2010 11:19 AM
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Lansing woman who sued Mount Hope Church and its pastor after she was injured during a rally at the church.
The court, in an order released Thursday, ruled 5-2 to reverse the Michigan Court of Appealsdecision and reinstate a jury verdict that awarded Judith Dadd six-figure damages for libel, slander and false light.
Dadd, who is in her 50s, sued the church and its pastor after she was injured while "slain in the Spirit" - falling backward after being "overcome by the Spirit of the Lord" - during a rally at Mount Hope Church in Delta Township in 2002.
Dadd later claimed Pastor Dave Williams defamed her when he accused her of insurance fraud, faking her injuries and renouncing her faith. A jury in 2007 awarded her more than $317,000 damages for her injuries, as well as libel, slander and false light.
The appeals court last year upheld Dadd's negligence claim, worth $40,000, but reversed more than $273,000 in damages for libel, slander and false light. It said Williams' statements might have been subject to qualified privilege, which allows someone with authority to make certain statements to members of an organization without being held liable.
'Jury system works'
The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the jury's finding that Williams acted with malice, negating the issue of qualified privilege.
Attorney Richard Rashid, who represented Dadd, called the decision a "complete victory."
"It demonstrates that the jury system works," Rashid said.
"The wisdom of the Supreme Court reversed the flawed opinion of the Court of Appeals."
Rashid said Dadd is "quite joyful" about the determination.
Williams did not return phone calls for comment, and his attorney, Randolph Bodwin, gave no comment.
Dissent from majority
Justices Stephen Markman and Maura Corrigan dissented from the majority's ruling in regards to the issues of libel and slander.
The trial court never informed the jury about "qualified privilege," which could have changed the way the jury decided whether Williams acted with malice, Markman wrote in his dissent.
Staff writer Kevin Grasha contributed to this report.
Source
April 12, 2010 11:19 AM
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Lansing woman who sued Mount Hope Church and its pastor after she was injured during a rally at the church.
The court, in an order released Thursday, ruled 5-2 to reverse the Michigan Court of Appealsdecision and reinstate a jury verdict that awarded Judith Dadd six-figure damages for libel, slander and false light.
Dadd, who is in her 50s, sued the church and its pastor after she was injured while "slain in the Spirit" - falling backward after being "overcome by the Spirit of the Lord" - during a rally at Mount Hope Church in Delta Township in 2002.
Dadd later claimed Pastor Dave Williams defamed her when he accused her of insurance fraud, faking her injuries and renouncing her faith. A jury in 2007 awarded her more than $317,000 damages for her injuries, as well as libel, slander and false light.
The appeals court last year upheld Dadd's negligence claim, worth $40,000, but reversed more than $273,000 in damages for libel, slander and false light. It said Williams' statements might have been subject to qualified privilege, which allows someone with authority to make certain statements to members of an organization without being held liable.
'Jury system works'
The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the jury's finding that Williams acted with malice, negating the issue of qualified privilege.
Attorney Richard Rashid, who represented Dadd, called the decision a "complete victory."
"It demonstrates that the jury system works," Rashid said.
"The wisdom of the Supreme Court reversed the flawed opinion of the Court of Appeals."
Rashid said Dadd is "quite joyful" about the determination.
Williams did not return phone calls for comment, and his attorney, Randolph Bodwin, gave no comment.
Dissent from majority
Justices Stephen Markman and Maura Corrigan dissented from the majority's ruling in regards to the issues of libel and slander.
The trial court never informed the jury about "qualified privilege," which could have changed the way the jury decided whether Williams acted with malice, Markman wrote in his dissent.
Staff writer Kevin Grasha contributed to this report.
Source
Comment