California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Abraham v. Lancaster Community Hospital, 217 Cal.App.3d 796, 266 Cal.Rptr. 360 (Cal. App. 1990):
12 See Friedman v. Knecht (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 455, 462-463, 56 Cal.Rptr. 540 [" 'The rule of law exists, not because the conduct of those persons ought not of itself to be actionable, but because if their conduct was actionable, actions would be brought against judges and witnesses in cases in which they had not spoken with malice, in which they had not spoken with falsehood. It is not a desire to prevent actions from being brought in cases where they ought to be maintained that has a led to the adoption of the present rule of law; but it is the fear that if the rule were otherwise, numerous actions would be brought against persons who were merely discharging their duty. It must always be borne in mind that it is not intended to protect malicious and untruthful persons, but that it is intended to protect persons acting bona fide, who under a different rule would be liable, not perhaps to verdicts and judgments against them, but to the vexation of defending actions.' "]; Pettitt v. Levy (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 484, 492, 104 Cal.Rptr. 650 ["It is not gratifying to reach a result which insulates those guilty of alleged heinous conduct from answering therefor. However, we are satisfied that the purpose and philosophy of the privilege compels this result and that any narrowing of the privilege to redress this grievance would produce mischiefs far worse."].
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.