I dissent. The majority reverses the trial court's refusal to grant K-Mart's motion for directed verdict, holding that the *Page 606 plaintiff failed to prove even a scintilla of evidence that K-Mart published the alleged defamation. I cannot agree that the trial court erred in submitting this case to the jury.
A careful review of the evidence convinces me that a jury issue was made out on the issue of publication, even under the harsh rule adopted by the majority. Clearly, there was evidence from which the jury could find that there was a publication of the defamatory statement.
Roger Hurt, K-Mart district loss control director, told the current manager that the plaintiff had been fired for stealing, after he knew that the statement was false, and one or more of K-Mart's employees told someone outside the corporation the same thing. It was generally known in the community that K-Mart had said it fired the plaintiff for stealing. Therefore, I believe the trial court correctly submitted the case to the jury and did so under a proper charge.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JONES, ALMON and ADAMS, JJ., concur.