THE TRIBUNE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PAUL HOGAN, MANAGING EDITOR, JOSEPH REGISTRATO, CITY DESK EDITOR, AND WILLIAM SLOAT, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
LEONARD D. LEVIN, GENERAL ENERGY DEVICES, INC., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
The Tribune Company appealed a jury verdict awarding compensatory damages for defamatory newspaper articles about a solar energy device manufacturer. The trial court struck punitive damages after a jury poll revealed disagreement, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that private-figure plaintiffs need only prove negligence rather than actual malice to recover compensatory damages in defamation cases.
The trial court correctly determined that the plaintiffs were private figures rather than public figures, and therefore correctly instructed the jury that plaintiffs could recover compensatory damages by proving the defendants published the defamatory statements with negligence rather than actual malice. Florida follows federal law applying the negligence standard for private-figure defamation plaintiffs.
[1] A private individual suing for defamation must prove negligence, not actual malice, when the defamatory statements concern their business or personal activities.
[2] A business engaged in manufacturing and selling solar energy devices is not a public figure for the purposes of a defamation action.
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“the trial court instructed the jury that appellees could recover compensatory damages by proving that appellants published the alleged defamatory statements with negligence”
Establishes that private-figure plaintiffs in defamation need only prove negligence, not actual malice, to recover compensatory damages.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Tribune Company published defamatory newspaper articles concerning Leonard D. Levin and General Energy Devices, Inc., a business manufacturing and…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Public Figure Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A jury awarded plaintiffs/appellees compensatory and punitive damages for appellants’ publication of defamatory newspaper articles concerning appellees’ business and personal activities. After a poll of the jury disclosed that not all the jurors were in agreement on the award of punitive damages, the trial court struck that portion of the verdict. The trial court entered judgment accordingly.
Appellants seek reversal of the judgment for compensatory damages on several grounds, and appellees seek to reinstate the award of punitive damages. We have examined each of the points on the appeal and cross-appeal and find no reversible error; however, one point urged by appellants merits discussion.
The trial court determined that appellees, who were in the business of manufacturing and selling solar energy devices, were not public figures. From our review of the record, we think the court was correct. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 633 F. 2d 583 (1st Cir.1980). But cf. Steaks Unlimited, Inc. v. Deaner, 623 F. 2d 264 (3d Cir.1980).
Having determined that appel-lees were not public figures, the trial court refused appellants’ request to instruct the jury that it was necessary for appellees to establish that the alleged defamatory statements sued upon were published with “actual malice,” that is, either with knowledge of their falsity, or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity, as defined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). Instead, the court instructed the jury that appellees could recover compensatory damages by proving that appellants published the alleged defamatory statements with negligence. Again, we think the trial court ruled correctly.
We agree with the majority opinion by Chief Judge Hubbart in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Ane, 423 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1982) (Hendry, J., dissenting).
There, the Third District Court of Appeal rejected the newspaper’s contention that a private plaintiff must establish that the defamatory statement was published with actual malice. Instead, the court held that Florida follows the federal law and applies negligence as the standard for recovery of compensatory damages by a private plaintiff who is neither a public official nor a public figure in a defamation suit. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448, 96 S.Ct. 958, 47 L.Ed.2d 154 (1976); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.; Karp v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 359 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 365 So. 2d 712 (Fla.1978); Helton v. United Press International, 303 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
The Third District Court of Appeal concluded that the issue is one of “great public importance” and certified its decision to the supreme court so as to permit further review under Article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution.
Appellants herein should have the same opportunity; accordingly, we certify to the supreme court that our decision approving that same standard of negligence as a basis for recovery by private individuals in defamation actions is an issue of “great public importance.”
OTT, C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOON-OVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp., 431 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…rida law in order for a private individual to recover actual damages, the appropriate standard after Gertz is negligence — i.e., publication of false and defamatory statements without reasonable care to determine their falsity. Tribune Co. v. Levin, 426 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Ane, 423 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Cape Publications, Inc. v. Teri’s Health Studio, Inc., 385 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); see also: Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases, M.I. 4…
-
HAY v. Indep. Newspapers, Inc., 450 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…those statements, (3) [*295] resulting in actual damage to that private person. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Ane, 423 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp., 431 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Tribune Co. v. Levin, 426 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Whether a statement is one of fact or one of opinion is a question of law. From v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., 400 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) petition for review denied 412 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1982). False statements of fact of o…
-
The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Frank, 442 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…of substantial competent evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the statements pertaining to Frank were false and that their publication established the requisite degree of negligence on the part of The Herald. Tribune Co. v. Levin, 426 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Ane, 423 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The record contains evidence that the loan was denied for reasons unrelated to Frank’s actions [*984] and that Frank was not contacted by Put-ney for confirma…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974)
- Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976)
- The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Aurelio ANE, 423 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Steaks Unlimited, Inc. v. Deaner, 623 F.2d 264 (3d Cir. 1980)
- Bruno & Stillman, Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 633 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1980)
- Volkswagenwerke v. McMILLAN, 359 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Helton v. United Press Int'l, 303 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Huffman v. Huffman, 303 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)