 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lake Park Post v. Farmer11/24/2003
In these appeals, the Lake Park Post, Inc., its editor and publisher Al Parsons, and its columnist Charles Moore (collectively "the Lake Park Post defendants") challenge a judgment based on a jury verdict for compensatory and punitive damages in favor of Kevin Farmer for $225,000. Farmer, a deputy sheriff, sued the Lake Park Post defendants for libel after the paper published a series of articles, written by Parson and Moore, that stated that Farmer murdered Willie James Williams by brutally and repeatedly hitting Williams with a flashlight while he was handcuffed and not resisting arrest. The paper published an article stating that "enhanced video footage shows Deputy Kevin Farmer beating Williams with a flashlight." Williams died on September 1, 1998, and the articles on which this case is based were published after August 5, 1999.
Although Farmer demanded a retraction, the Lake Park Post defendants refused to publish one, and continued to publish articles stating that Farmer beat Williams with a flashlight and caused his death. In all, according to Farmer, the Lake Park Post defendants called Farmer a murderer 17 times and reported that he brutally beat Williams with the flashlight 48 times.
The Lake Park Post defendants do not contend that the statements in the articles were true. Instead, the only issue that they argue is that the trial court erred by denying their motions for a directed verdict because Farmer, a public official failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statements were made with actual malice, i.e., knowing that they were false or with a reckless disregard for their falsity. We disagree and affirm.
1. When reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion for a directed verdict, appellate courts must review and resolve the evidence and any doubt or ambiguity in favor of the verdict. A directed verdict is not proper unless there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, demands a certain verdict." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Southern Store &c; Co. v. Maddox, 195 Ga. App. 2, 3 (1) (392 SE2d 268) (1990). Further, " e have an independent obligation as an appellate court to examine this record and determine if this verdict and judgment was supported by clear and convincing proof of actual malice. Bose Corp. v. Consumer's Union, 466 U. S. 485, 511 (104 SC1949, 80 LE2d 502)." Miller v. Woods, 180 Ga. App. 486, 489 (349 SE2d 505) (1986). Our obligation is "`to make an independent examination of the whole record;' in order to make sure that `the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.'" Bose Corp v. Consumer's Union, supra, 466 U. S. at 499.
2. With the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, [376 U. S. 254 (84 SC 710, 11 LE2d 686) (1964)] the law of defamation has undergone substantial changes. [See Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977) div. five, ch. 24-27 special note.] The Restatement now lists four elements in a cause of action for defamation: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party; (3) fault by the defendant amounting at least to negligence; and (4) special harm or the actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm. When, as here, a libel action involves a speech of public concern, a plaintiff must show that the defendant published a defamatory statement about the plaintiff, the defamatory statement was false, the defendant was at fault in publishing it, and the plaintiff suffered actual injury from the statements.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Mathis v. Cann
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|