GEORGE WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY AND HOMESTEAD NEWSPAPERS, INC., 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.
Court reversed summary judgment for newspaper defendant, holding that newspaper articles contained factual statements rather than protected opinion and that fair comment privilege did not apply because plaintiff was not a public figure.
Newspaper articles constitute factual statements rather than protected opinion, and fair comment privilege does not apply to private figures.
[1] Fair comment privilege under Florida common law does not protect newspaper articles about private figures who have not voluntarily entered the public arena.
Previewing 1 of 1 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 comments of the newspaper articles in question constitute factual statements and not expressions of the newspaper's opinion which otherwise might be protected as being privileged”
Court's holding distinguishing between factual statements and protected opinion
Homestead Newspapers published articles about George Wright. Florida Power & Light Company and Homestead Newspapers moved for summary judgment.…
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 Fair Comment Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee Homestead Newspapers, Inc., who was a defendant below, contends that the summary judgment entered in its favor by the trial court was proper because the newspaper articles in question were protected by the “opinion” privilege as well as by Florida’s common-law “fair comment” privilege. We disagree.
We hold, as a matter of law, that the comments of the newspaper articles in question constitute factual statements and not expressions of the newspaper’s opinion which otherwise might be protected as being privileged. Furthermore, we hold that the newspaper articles in question are not protected by Florida's common-law “fair comment” privilege due to the fact that the appellant, who was the plaintiff below, is not a public figure see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), nor has he done anything to make himself “part of the passing scene”, see Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Ane, 458 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1984); Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So. 2d 823 (Fla.1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 951, 90 S.Ct. 1871, 26 L.Ed.2d 291 (1970).
Accordingly, as to appellee Homestead Newspapers, Inc., we reverse the summary judgment under review and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. '
As to the summary judgment entered in favor of Florida Power and Light Company, we find no error, and accordingly, we affirm that judgment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saro Corp. v. Waterman Broad. Corp., 595 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ILEGE Our determination that Transmission Kingdom is a private claimant also resolves the issue of privilege. The press has no qualified privilege to defame a private individual. Miami Herald, 458 So. 2d at 241; Wright v. Florida Power & Light Co., 559 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 574 So. 2d 141 (Fla.1990); Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations, 510 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 518 So. 2d 1277 (Fla.1987). For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the trial court erred in granting WBBH’s mot…
Authorities Cited
- N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964)
- Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1970)
- The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Aurelio ANE, 458 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1984)
- Stratmore et ux. v. United States, 398 U.S. 951 (U.S. 1970)
- Eyen v. Nebraska ex rel. Meyer, 398 U.S. 951 (U.S. 1970)