HARRISBURG – The Superior Court on March 25 said a lower court did not error in granting judgment to defendants in a lawsuit in which a woman sued a gun supplier and accused the company of having her wrongly incarcerated in a mental health ward.
“Statements may ultimately prove to be false or maliciously motivated, they are deemed to be absolutely privileged because the policy concerns...outweigh the right of the defamation plaintiff to seek redress for alleged harm caused by the statements,” the opinion concluded.
The brief said Carolyn Forbes purchased a firearm from King Shooters Supply, a store located in King of Prussia. She contended she purchased the firearm for protection due to “her home having been broken into on several occasions.”
“On January 13, 2017, after deciding it was not wise to keep her gun loaded, she attempted to remove the bullets from the gun,” the opinion reported. “However, she was unable to do so. She was quite upset at the time as the pattern of break-ins and attempted break-ins to her home continued.”
The woman returned to King Shooters to tell store employees of her concerns but the employees called the police and said the woman was in need of psychiatric intervention.
She was transferred to the Behavioral Hospital of Philadelphia, where she was admitted under the state’s Mental Health Procedures Act, although her admission was not voluntary. She was alleged to be delusional.
Forbes was held, she alleged, against her will at the facility for 13 days and released on Jan. 26, 2017.
Forbes sued King Shooters and Haven Behavioral Hospital, claiming the store employees slandered her with untrue allegations of delusional conduct. She said being held against her will caused her great pain, mental anguish and economic loss.
In February 2019, King employees filed for a motion for judgment with the court, arguing that statements made to the police were privileged and protected.
The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted the defendants' motion in May of 2019.
Forbes appealed the verdict.
“The existence of privilege does not depend upon the motive of the defendant in making the allegedly defamatory statement,” the Superior Court opinion read. “The privilege is absolute and cannot be destroyed by abuse. The scope of the absolute judicial privilege...applies to private parties involved in providing information to the proper authorities in connection with the suspected commission of a crime.”
The Superior Court concluded the statements King Shooters Supply employees made to the police suggesting that the appellant was in need of psychiatric intervention were absolutely privileged.
Thus, it added, the statements were free from the slander claim.