GUSTAV E. HULANDER, APPELLANT,
v.
SUNBEAM TELEVISION CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A WCKT-TV, MANDEL KRADISH AND EAGLE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A plaintiff brought a libel action against a television broadcaster but failed to comply with Florida's pre-suit notice requirement, which mandates specification of the exact false and defamatory statements in the challenged broadcast. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action, and the appellate court affirmed.
The notice did not comply with the statutory requirement because it failed to identify and specify which particular statements in the broadcast were alleged to be false and defamatory, instead using vague language referring to 'any allegations or innuendos or intimations of criminal conduct.' Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
[1] A statute requiring notice to a defendant before filing a civil action for libel or slander mandates that the notice specify with particularity the statements alleged to…
[2] The purpose of a statutory notice requirement prior to a libel or slander action is to enable the defendant to retract any false statement.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical or other medium of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least five days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he alleges to be false and defamatory.”
The statutory requirement from Florida Statute § 770.01 that establishes the mandatory pre-suit notice requirement with specificity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Gustav Hulander sued Sunbeam Television Corporation (WCKT-TV), Mandel Kradish, and Eagle, Inc. for libel based on statements made in the sta…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant brought a suit sounding in libelous slander against the appellees, Sunbeam Television Corporation, d/b/a WCKT-TY, Mandel Kradish and Eagle, Inc. The defendant-appellee, Sunbeam Television Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss alleging a failure to state a cause of action. Upon hearing thereon, the trial court granted the motion, and in said order dismissing the plaintiff’s action against Sunbeam with prejudice the following is found:
* * * * * *
“THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before me upon the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice filed herein by the Defendant, SUNBEAM TELEVISION CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, d/b/a WCKT-TV. In support of the Motion the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1976) which is a prerequisite to instituting an action against a broadcaster for libel. Section 770.01, Florida Statutes, states:
‘Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical or other medium of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least five days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he alleges to be false and defamatory.’ (Emphasis added)
“The statute requires specification as to the statements in the broadcast alleged to be false and defamatory. The purpose of the requirement is to enable the broadcaster to retract any false statement contended by the offended party to be false. In order to meet the requirements of the statute, the notice should specify with particularity the statements in the offensive broadcast which are alleged to be false and defamatory. Cooper v. Miami Herald Pub. Co. [159 Fla. 296], 31 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1947); Adams v. News Journal Corporation, 84 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1955); Gannett Florida Corp. v. Montesano, 308 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); cert. denied, 317 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1975).
“The pertinent portions of the notice given were as follows:
‘We have been retained to pursue a libel action against you for the libelous material which you published on your September 1, 1977, 6:00 p. m. news broadcast wherein you published libelous statements to the effect that our clients had committed, the felony of extortion and bribery with regard to their dealings with a firm known as Eagle, Inc., and an individual known as Mandel Kradish . . .’ (Emphasis added)
‘The purpose of this letter is to give you an opportunity, within five (5) days, to retract said libelous statement by affording the injured parties an opportunity to present their statement, on the same news program, for the same amount of time, to the contrary, and for your station to issue a retraction of any allegations or innuendoes or intimidations of criminal conduct on the part of my clients.’ (Emphasis added)
“It is the opinion of the Court that the notice lacks the specificity required by the statute. “WHEREFORE, it is
“ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendant, Sunbeam’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice be and the same. is hereby granted, and that the Plaintiff take nothing by this action as against said Defendant and that the Defendant, SUNBEAM TELEVISION CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, d/b/a WCKT-TV, go hence without day and recover its costs upon further hearing.”
* * * * * *
This appeal ensued. We affirm.
The retraction letter served by the plaintiff’s counsel failed to advise the broadcasting company with particularity as to which statements were false, and called upon the company to retract “ * * * any allegations or innuendos or intimations of criminal conduct * * * Nowhere in the retraction notice were the allegations, innuendos or intimations identified. Therefore, we find the action of the trial judge, in dismissing the complaint with prejudice, to be correct. See: Cooper v. Miami Herald Publishing Company, 189 Fla. 296, 31 So. 2d 382 (1947); Adams v. News-Journal Corporation, supra; Hevey v. News-Journal Corporation, 148 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963); Gannett Florida Corporation v. Montesano, supra; Orlando Sports Stadium v. Sentinel Star Company, 316 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Anderson v. Hearst Pub. Co., 120 F.Supp. 850 (S.D.Cal.1954).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 413 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…cause it did not specifically identify the article, the complaint was susceptible to further pleading by way of amendment to effectuate the court’s conclusion). We recede, therefore, from this court’s holding in Hulander v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 364 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 459 (Fla.1979) to the extent that Hulander, supra, may bar a single amendment of a demand for retraction made pursuant to Section 770.01 after the filing of complaint.9 It was error to dismiss the cause o…
-
Gifford v. Bruckner, 565 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…er complaint Gif-ford wrote appellees’ counsel demanding a retraction. It would appear that this letter, which did not fully identify the allegedly defamatory statements, provided insufficient notice. See, e.g., Hulander v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 364 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 459 (Fla.1979).2 However, this court has held that section 770.01 does not apply when an action is brought against a non-media defendant. Bridges v. Williamson, 449 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). A thorou…
-
Cook v. Pompano Shopper, Inc., 582 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ents in order to mitigate the harm caused by those statements. Numerous cases have affirmed dismissals for failure of the notices to “specify with particularity” the alleged defamatory statements. See generally Hulander v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 364 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 373 So. 2d 459 (Fla.1979); Gannett Florida Corp. v. Montesano, 308 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 317 So. 2d 78 (Fla.1975); see also Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. Sentinel Star Co., 316 So. 2d 607 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cooper v. THE Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 159 Fla. 296 (Fla. 1947)
- Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. Sentinel Star Co., 316 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Isham W. Adams v. News-Journal Corp., 84 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1955)
- Hevey v. News-Journal Corp., 148 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Gannett v. Montesano, 308 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Duval Prods., Inc. v. City OF Tampa, 317 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1975)
- Evans v. State, 317 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1975)