B. ROY GIBSON, JR., AND ST. JOSEPH TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH A. MALONEY, D/B/A THE APALACHICOLA TIMES, 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.
In this libel and slander case, appellants Gibson and St. Joseph Telephone and Telegraph Company appealed a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages to newspaper publisher Maloney. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions regarding malice or in the sufficiency of evidence supporting the verdict.
The court held that no reversible error occurred regarding the jury instructions, as the trial court adequately stated the law regarding malice. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, as reasonable jurors could have found the verdict they did based on the record.
“The test to be applied is not what an appellate court would have decided had they tried the case, but whether or not they can say after reviewing the case that the jury, as reasonable men, could not have found the verdict which they did.”
Establishes the standard of review for sufficiency of evidence on appeal in jury verdict cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGibson made a speech before a civic club in Port St. Joe accusing the local newspaper publisher (Maloney) of causing the Apalachicola telephone exchan…
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 Libel And Slander cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants seek review of a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding plaintiff-appellee compensatory and punitive damages in a libel and slander action. Damages forming the basis of this action were sustained, so found the jury, when the individual defendant made a speech before a civic club in Port St. Joe, and the corporate defendant printed and distributed copies of the speech to all of its telephone subscribers.
The defamatory matter complained of, in substance, stated that Apalachicola was the only exchange of the company that showed any loss in the number of telephones, and that such loss was attributed largely to the local newspaper and its publisher (appellee herein) who was accused of taking pleasure in berating and abusing any business interest in the community, particularly including the duPont estate interests; it was further said of the publisher that in some instances he stated outright falsehoods about the du-Pont estate interests.
As reversible error, appellants urge the trial court’s refusal to give certain requested instructions setting forth the need to find malice in the making of a statement to which a qualified privilege attaches. Our. review of the record and the instructions given to the jury by the court convinces us that the law in this particular instance was adequately stated to the jury in the court’s instructions, and no^ reversible error has been shown in this respect.
*90The remaining point upon which appellants rely for reversal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict for both compensatory and punitive damages. We cannot say on the basis of the record before us that the jury’s verdict was not supported by competent evidence. The test to be applied is not what an appellate court would have decided had they tried the case, but whether or not they can say after reviewing the case that the jury, as reasonable men, could not have found the verdict which they did. See Abraham Used Car Company v. Silva, Fla.App., 208 So.2d 500.
Appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower •court hereby appealed is affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD IC., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1970)…e verdict which they did. See Abraham Used Car Company v. Silva, Fla.App., 208 So. 2d 500. “Appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.” (Emphasis added.) Gibson v. Maloney, 214 So. 2d 89 (1st Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968). Petitioners now seek review by certiorari in this Court, claiming that the District Court’s decision is in direct conflict with decisions of this Court or other District Courts of Appeal. Fla.Const. art. V, § 4(2). The m…1 / 3
-
Gibson v. Joesph A. Maloney, 263 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…SPECTOR, Chief Judge. Appellee’s libel action against appellants has been considered by this court on an earlier occasion. Gibson v. Maloney, 214 So. 2d 89. In that case, we affirmed a libel judgment against appellants in the amount of $10,000 compensatory damages and $5,000 punitive damages. The Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed this court, holding that appellee made himself a “pu…
-
Woodbury v. Staros, 219 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…the arguments of counsel fail to show that the statements which are the subject matter of this litigation, when taken in the context and circumstances in which they were made, come within the qualified privilege doctrine. Gibson, et al. v. Ma-loney, 214 So. 2d 89 (Fla.App. 1st 1968). Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error in this or any other respect, the judgment appealed is therefore affirmed. WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Abraham Used CAR Co. v. Silva, 208 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)