applying witness immunity where the negligence claim was so intertwined with defamatory statements that the court did not expect the jury to distinguish between the two
How later courts described this case
- applying witness immunity where the negligence claim was so intertwined with defamatory statements that the court did not expect the jury to distinguish between the two
- cause of action for negligent testimony and defamation are “so intertwined ... that it would be unfair, and probably impossible, to expect a jury to distinguish between the two”; psycholo gist held to be absolutely immune for trial testimony regarding possible misdiagnosis of one of the parties
- holding psychologist has duty. to diagnose mental disease and to apply proper treatment
- dismissing a negligence claim pursuant to an immunity defense available for defamation where the claim “is essentially relabeling a defamation claim”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DAVIES, Judge
(concurring specially).
I write separately because I would reach the issue of judicial immunity for respondent Charles M. Cutler.
In my view, the district court in effect delegated selection of the custody evaluator to the parties, at their request. The parties then jointly chose Cutler (notwithstanding that the father deferred to the selection made by appellant Zagaros). In this fact situation, Cutler comes to court with the same judicial immunity that he would enjoy had the district court appointed him directly.