JAMES H. HARRISON, APPELLANT,
v.
LEWIS E. WILLIAMS, JR., APPELLEE
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 police officer sued a private citizen for slander and libel based on accusations that the officer beat the plaintiff's son during an arrest. The trial court found the defendant made defamatory statements with malice despite evidence of mistaken identity, and this court affirmed the judgment.
The trial court properly found malice and reckless disregard for the truth. Substantial, competent evidence supported the judgment awarding compensatory damages for slander ($500) and libel ($4,500) plus nominal punitive damages ($1.00 on each count), despite appellant's claim of mistaken identity.
[1] A public official claiming defamation must establish malice or reckless disregard for the truth of a publication.
[2] A trial court's finding of malice in a defamation case may be affirmed if supported by substantial, competent evidence.
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“Because appellee was a public official at the time he was defamed, malice or reckless disregard for the truth of a publication had to be established.”
Establishes the applicable legal standard for defamation of a public official under St. Amant v. Thompson.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 27, 1980, appellant's son was arrested by Fort Lauderdale police and returned home beaten. The son identified appellee as the officer who …
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.
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
Appellee, a police officer, filed an action for slander and libel against appellant. He claimed appellant orally uttered defamatory communications to other police officers and to an assistant state attorney and originated and sent a defamatory letter to various officials. Because appellee was a public official at the time he was defamed, malice or reckless disregard for the truth of a publication had to be established. St Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968). The trial court in a non-jury trial, found for appellee, awarding him compensatory damages in the amount of $500 for slander, $4,500 for libel and nominal punitive damages of $1.00 on each count. Appellant contends the trial court erred in finding the oral and written statements were published with malice and that the evidence only shows he made a good faith mistake about the identity of appellee.
On the night of February 27, 1980, appellant’s son was arrested by members of the Fort Lauderdale police department. Appellee was at home that night and was not involved in the arrest or what allegedly occurred thereafter. When appellant’s son arrived home early the next morning, he was bloodied and informed his father that he had been beaten by police officers. When the son later saw appellee at the police station, he informed his father that it was appellee who had broken his nose after the arrest. The assistant state attorney investigating the matter informed appellant that officers other than appellee were involved in the arrest and detention of appellant’s son. One of the other officers looked very much like appellee. Notwithstanding the advices from the assistant state attorney, appellant shortly thereafter told other officers that appellee had battered his son. Weeks later, he sent the subject letter to state and local officials, accusing appellee of practicing medicine without a license and stating that appellee said “your (sic) o.k.” to his son who “was lying in urine, bleeding, handcuffed, crying in pain while locked in a cell.”
We find there is substantial, competent evidence to affirm the judgment; therefore we affirm.
HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilkinson v. Fla. Adult Care Ass'n, 450 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ppointment: Goodrick v. Gannett Co., 500 F.Supp. 125 (D.Del.1980) (assistant public defender); Russell v. Smith, 434 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), petition for review granted, (Fla. Jan. 9, 1984) (No. 64,086) (police officer); Harrison v. Williams, 430 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (police officer); Cape Publications, Inc. v. Adams, 336 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 945 (Fla.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 943, 98 S.Ct. 440, 54 L.Ed.2d 305 (1977) (city building official); Bishop v. Wom…
-
Russell v. Smith, 434 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…c official. We agree. Florida case law has characterized a police officer as a public official “subject to fair comment and criticism from any member of the public....” White v. Fletcher, 90 So. 2d 129, 131 (Fla.1956). See also Harrison v. Williams, 430 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Thus to establish that he has been defamed, a police officer must show that the communication was made with malice or reckless disregard for the truth. See St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968…
Authorities Cited
- ST. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1968)