Florida cases from October 2020 through June 2021
Defamation (libel and slander) is an area of law that is always changing. The most common issues where change is occurring relate to the elements of defamation, the falsity of statements and public figures. Below are the most recent appellate court defamation cases related to these issues which were decided between October 2020 and June 2021.
Elements of Defamation
Lowery v. McBee – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. – June 9, 2021 – 322 So.3d 110
Headline: Venue was proper in the county where libelous social network post was published and accessed by third parties.
Summary of Issues: 1) A cause of action for defamation toward a private individual requires five elements: (1) publication; (2) falsity; (3) that the alleged tortfeasor act at least negligently on a matter concerning the private individual; (4) actual damages; and (5) a defamatory statement. 2) The distinction between libel per se and libel per quod is irrelevant for purposes of determining where the cause of action accrued, for purposes of venue. 3) Although there is a statute concerning when the cause of action accrues for action of libel or slander, that statute is not determinative of where the cause of action accrues or where publication occurs, for purposes of venue; statute on its face relates to the time of accrual of the cause of action and does not control the place of filing. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 770.07. 4) Plaintiff’s cause of action for libel per se for an allegedly libelous social networking website post accrued in the county where the post was received and read by a third party, and thus, venue was proper in that county; even though post originated in the county where the defendant resided, injury to plaintiff did not occur until defendant published the libelous post and it was accessed by others. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 770.07.
Readon v. WPLG, LLC – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. – April 14, 2021 – 317 So.3d 1229
Headline: News station’s alleged false statement that pastor sent picture of dead body to federal prosecutor was not actionable in pastor’s defamation lawsuit.
Summary of Issues: 1) To state a claim for defamation of a public figure, the public figure is required to allege that statements were made that were (1) false, (2) defamatory, (3) damaging, and (4) that the publisher acted with actual malice. 2) State law recognizes a difference between statements presented as fact and statements presented as an opinion or rhetorical hyperbole in defamation cases; the key distinction is whether the incorrectly reported material would have had a different effect on the mind of the viewer by affecting the gist of the story. 3) News station did not impermissibly juxtapose a series of true facts so as to create a defamatory implication when reporting on pastor’s business dealings; news station’s negative statements about pastor were not the implication that his business dealings were done as a pastor, but rather were that he was engaging in a continuing pattern of deceitful business practices, such negative statements were not implied, but rather, stated explicitly, and reporting on pastor’s profession did not make these stories about pastor any more or less negative, but rather gave the public context for why the stories were relevant. 4) Defamation by implication arises, not from what is stated, but from what is implied when a defendant (1) juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them, or (2) creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts, such that he may be held responsible for the defamatory implication. 5) In a defamation case, it is not enough that a reasonably prudent person would have investigated further; the failure to investigate, without more, does not constitute actual malice, but instead, there must be obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports. 6) “Actual malice,” as required for a defamation claim brought by a public figure, is defined as knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. 7) “Reckless conduct,” for purposes of a defamation claim brought by a public figure, is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published or would have investigated before publishing; there must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication, and thus, publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual malice. 8) Actual malice, as required for a defamation claim brought by a public figure, requires more than a departure from reasonable journalistic standards, and thus, a failure to investigate, standing on its own, does not indicate the presence of actual malice; instead, there must be some showing that the defendant purposefully avoided further investigation with the intent to avoid the truth. 9) News station’s alleged failure to conduct a more searching investigation before publishing news reports on certain allegations against pastor, a public figure, did not amount to the actual malice required for pastor’s defamation claim; station was contacted by a known informant who apprised station of the allegations, station verified the existence of the lawsuits naming pastor as defendant by checking public court records, showing that reports were not fabricated by news station, wholly imaginary, based on unverified anonymous source, inherently improbable, or obviously worthy of doubt, station contacted pastor to discuss allegations, and station had no obvious reason to doubt the challenged statements. 10) Under the substantial truth doctrine applicable to defamation cases, a statement does not have to be perfectly accurate if the gist or the sting of the statement is true. 11) Under the substantial truth doctrine applicable to defamation cases, as long as a report is substantially correct, it is not necessary that it be exact in every immaterial detail or that it conform to the precision demanded in technical or scientific reporting. 12) News station’s alleged false statement that pastor sent picture of dead body to federal prosecutor was not actionable in pastor’s defamation lawsuit; although station failed to include information that recipient was not a federal prosecutor at the time, but rather, was in his capacity as guardian ad litem for a minor child in a family court proceeding, and this oversight made the statement untrue, it did not change the gist of the story that pastor emailed picture of dead body to an attorney serving as child’s guardian ad litem. 13) To plead actual malice on a defamation claim by a public figure, a plaintiff is required to plead facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable inference of actual malice.
Skupin v. Hemisphere Media Group, Inc. – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. – October 21, 2020 – 314 So.3d 353
Headline: Physician required to provide statutory pre-suit notice to media defendants for allegedly defamatory statements supporting tortious interference claim.
Summary of Issues: 1) Commentary or opinion based on facts that are set forth in the subject publication or which are otherwise known or available to the reader or listener do not constitute libel. 2) Statements made against physician in investigative reporting series broadcast on television and on internet did not constitute defamation, in physician’s action against media defendants for defamation and libel, where each statement in the documentary program was either not capable of being proved true or false on core of objective evidence, consisted of so-called rhetorical hyperbole, or was protected commentary or opinion based on facts set forth in reports that were otherwise known or available to listener. 3) In determining whether an allegedly defamatory statement is fact, pure opinion, or mixed expressions of opinion, a court must construe the statement in its totality, examining not merely a particular phrase or sentence, but all the words used in the publication. 4) A litigant’s failure to comply with statutory presuit notice procedure, necessitating written notice on media defendants five days before civil action is brought for libel or slander identifying broadcast and statements therein which litigant alleges to be false and defamatory, requires dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 770.01. 5) Whether a statement is one of fact or opinion in a claim for defamation is a question of law for the court and not a jury. 6) Whether statements are privileged expressions of pure opinion or unprivileged mixed expressions of opinion in a defamation action is a question of law properly resolved by the trial court.
Lowery v. McBee – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. – June 9, 2021 – 322 So.3d 110
Headline: Venue was proper in county where libelous social network post was published and accessed by third parties.
Summary of Issues: 1) “Libel” is a subcategory of defamation, defined as the unprivileged written publication of a false and defamatory statement. 2) A libelous statement may be either libel per se or libel per quod; the practical distinction between the two is that for libel per quod, actual malice and special damages must be proved.
Gursky Ragan, P.A. v. Association of Poinciana Villages, Inc. – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. – December 23, 2020 – 314 So.3d 594
Headline: Allegedly defamatory disclosure by homeowners’ association of contents of bar complaint against attorneys was related to separate replevin action, and thus absolute litigation privilege attached.
Summary of Issues: 1) Judges, counsel, parties, and witnesses should be absolutely exempted from liability to an action for defamatory words published in the course of judicial proceedings, regardless of how false or malicious the statements may be, as long as the statements bear some relation to or connection with the subject of inquiry. 2) Defamatory statements are absolutely privileged when they are (1) published in the course of judicial proceedings and (2) bear some relation to or connection with the subject of inquiry. 3) In determining whether an alleged defamatory statement made by judges, counsel, parties, and witnesses in the course of judicial proceedings bears some relation or connection with the subject inquiry, such that the speaker is absolutely exempted from liability for defamation, Florida courts apply a broad standard. 4) The allegedly defamatory disclosure of the contents of a bar complaint against attorneys, which occurred when homeowners association attached the complaint to a filing in a separate replevin action, was related to that action, and thus absolute litigation privilege attached to the disclosure, precluding defamation claim brought by attorneys and their law firm against association.
de Castro v. Stoddard – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. November 4, 2020 – 314 So.3d 397
Headline: Mayor’s critical statements about police chief were made in his official capacity, and thus, he was entitled to immunity from defamation suit.
Summary of Issues: 1) The public interest requires that statements made by officials of all branches of government in connection with their official duties be absolutely privileged from suit for defamation. 2) The controlling factor in deciding whether a public employee is absolutely immune from actions for defamation is whether the communication was within the scope of the officer’s duties. 3) Mayor’s critical statements about city police chief made in blog and letter to the public and city residents were made in his official capacity, and thus, mayor was entitled to absolute immunity from police chief’s defamation suit, although mayor’s position was in part ceremonial; mayor was voting member of city commission and served as its presiding officer when he made statements, city commission was empowered under city charter to conduct investigations into the affairs of the city and actions of any city department, board, officer, or agency, hiring or appointment of department directors, including police chief, required consent of majority of city commission, and mayor’s duties included keeping constituents informed of current events and operations within city and its government. 4) In determining whether a public official is absolutely immune from actions for defamation, the scope of the official’s duties is to be liberally construed. 5) The question of whether allegedly defamatory statements are absolutely privileged is one of law to be decided by the court and consequently is ripe for determination on motion for summary judgment.
Fernalld v. ABB, Inc. – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. – March 10, 2021 – 315 So.3d 1221
Headline: Verdict awarding employee $550,000 in damages in defamation action against wife of employee’s manager was supported by competent substantial evidence.
Summary of Issue: Jury’s verdict awarding employee $550,000 in damages, arising in employee’s defamation action against wife of employee’s former manager, was supported by competent substantial evidence, and thus trial court abused its discretion in reducing verdict to $100,000, where employee presented evidence that he was depressed, suicidal, in financial distress, and unemployed, employee presented evidence that defamatory statement was transmitted to all 50 of employer’s employees and to people outside company, and employee requested hundreds of thousands of dollars from jury for his defamation claim. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.74(1).
Falsity
Readon v. WPLG, LLC – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. – April 14, 2021 – 317 So.3d 1229
Headline: News station’s alleged false statement that pastor sent picture of dead body to federal prosecutor was not actionable in pastor’s defamation lawsuit.
Summary of Issues While defamation law shields publishers from liability for minor factual inaccuracies, it also works in reverse, to impose liability upon the defendant who has the details right but the gist wrong.
Public Figures
Readon v. WPLG, LLC – District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. – April 14, 2021 – 317 So.3d 1229
Headline: News station’s alleged false statement that pastor sent picture of dead body to federal prosecutor was not actionable in pastor’s defamation lawsuit.
Summary of Issues: 1) To determine if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public figure, appellate courts employ a two-step process: first, the court must determine whether there is a public controversy, and second, the court must determine whether the plaintiff played a sufficiently central role in the instant controversy to be considered a public figure for purposes of that controversy. 2) A public figure bringing a defamation action must prove more than mere negligence on the part of the publisher. 3) To state a claim for defamation of a public figure, the public figure is required to allege that statements were made that were (1) false, (2) defamatory, (3) damaging, and (4) that the publisher acted with actual malice.
Need Help or Have Questions?
Contact us today for a free case evaluation. We’ll listen to your case and explain your rights. When you’re ready to work with an experienced defamation lawyer to help you with your libel and slander issues, please fill out the form on our Contact Us page or give us a call at (954) 458-8655.
Related:
These recent defamation cases are for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Defamation law is always changing. Therefore, we strongly recommend talking with an experienced Florida defamation lawyer to learn your rights.
