Rather, this case turns on the verifiability of the column's accusation of deception against the Tatums. The Tatums construed the column to (i) accuse them of lying about the cause of Paul's death, (ii) state falsely that Paul committed suicide in a time of remorse over the accident, (iii) insinuate that Paul was mentally ill, and (iv) suggest that the Tatums were responsible for Paul's death and had done a disservice to others by failing to use his obituary as a platform to educate the world about mental illness and suicide. Believing that Paul's suicide was caused by a brain injury he sustained in the earlier automobile accident, the Tatums stated in the obituary that Paul died "as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident." To be actionable defamation, a statement must be a statement of verifiable fact rather than opinion. Civ. The trial court granted appellees' amended summary judgment motion, and the Tatums timely filed a notice of appeal. As to whether Blow misrepresented his investigation and the sources of his information, Blow testified by deposition that he learned the information about Paul's death that he used in his column from one of his colleagues at DMN. Finally, the Tatums point to their minister's testimony that he called Blow to express his concerns about the column and that Blow's first response was, Did I get my facts right?. As the Tatums urge, the service they bought was Paul's obituary. They're frustrated when obits don't say. 1992, writ dism'd w.o.j.) That is, as Neely illustrates, enough to raise a genuine fact issue on the fair comment privilege. One month later, on Father's Day, June 20, 2010, DMN published a column written by Blow. See Tex. But a topic is not a public controversy merely because some people are talking about it: A general concern or interest will not suffice. In light of Milkovich, Neely, and Bentley, we conclude that the column's gist that the Tatums were deceptive when they wrote Paul's obituary is sufficiently verifiable to be actionable in defamation. featuring summaries of federal and state In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 596. Id. 05-14-01017-CV JOHN TATUM AND MARY ANN TATUM, Appellants . 73.002(b)(1)(B), and (ii) a reasonable and fair comment on or criticism of a matter of public concern published for general information, id. DMN asserted the following traditional summary judgment grounds against the Tatums' DTPA claims: DMN did not commit a false, misleading, or deceptive act that the Tatums relied on. We must take evidence favorable to the nonmovant as true, and we must indulge every reasonable inference and resolve every doubt in the nonmovant's favor. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that their cases are distinguishable or otherwise unpersuasive. The court did not state the basis for any of its rulings. We do not consider the defamatory statement itself in determining whether the plaintiff is a public figure. Based on their view of the column's gist, appellees next argue that the cause of Paul's suicide and the Tatums' belief about that cause are irrelevant to the issue of truth. Star-Telegram (Fort Worth) The Newspaper distributed in Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex counties of Collin, Dallas, Delta, Denton, Ellis, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise. Appellees also argue that the column cannot reasonably be read to suggest that Paul had a mental illness. Id. The trial court granted summary judgment for Petitioners. But it's such a missed opportunity to educate.. That question remains to be decided by the factfinder. Blow, who did not contact the Tatums before writing his column, called for the public to more openly discuss mental illness, which is often a factor in suicides. On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas. 73.002(b)(1)(B). Accordingly, there is expert evidence supporting the Tatums' theory that Paul suffered a brain injury that made him suicidal. See DuncanHubert v. Mitchell, 310 S.W.3d 92, 103 (Tex.App.Dallas 2010, pet. I'm a big admirer of Julie Hersh. We employ a three-part test to assess whether a plaintiff is a limited-purpose public figure: (1)the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution; (2)the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy; and. Although the West court acknowledged and purported to apply the Milkovich analysis, it disregarded Milkovich's conclusions that accusing a person of being a liar or committing perjury can be sufficiently verifiable to constitute an actionable statement of fact rather than a nonactionable opinion. Two, they did not mention suicide in the obituary because (i) they believed it would give a false impression that Paul committed suicide as a result of depression or other mental illness and (ii) they did not feel it would honor Paul's memory to include morbid details about his death or to include overly scientific information. Appellees also direct us to Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222 (7th Cir.1993). From the people we hire to the way we work, let them tell you how we are different. Add . We agree that the column's gist associates the obituary with deception, which denotes an intention to deceive, often for personal advantage. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. To accuse someone of deception is to impeach his or her honesty and integrity. Our ePaper and live News feed are now together in one app. See Deceive, The New Oxford American Dictionary (cause (someone) to believe something that is not true, typically in order to gain some personal advantage). Free Newsletters Did the Tatums raise a genuine fact issue regarding whether the column was about them? b. Bus. 7. Become a business insider with the latest news. See Hancock v. Variyam, 400 S.W.3d 59, 64 (Tex.2013) (Defamation per quod is defamation that is not actionable per se.). Limited-purpose public figures are generally people who have thrust themselves to the forefront of a particular public controversy to influence its resolution, or who have voluntarily injected themselves or been drawn into a public controversy. He reviewed black box recorder data from the Tatums' vehicle that was involved in the accident, reviewed photographs of the vehicle, and interviewed the person who inspected the vehicle after the accident. As the Court notes, the obituary stated that their son died "as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident." Their son had shot himself after he had been involved in a car accident. We disagree. The Dallas Morning News is an independent paper positioned for growth. Unlike the current trend of local news being acquired by private equity firms and national chains, we have been a family-controlled company for over 135 years. 27.001.011. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the column was reasonably capable of defamatory meaning and that the column was not a non-actionable opinion. denied). About three months later, they filed an amended traditional and no-evidence summary judgment motion. Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of Texas opinions delivered to your inbox! Texas Supreme Court dismisses defamation lawsuit against The Dallas Morning News John and Mary Ann Tatum, whose 17-year-old son shot himself, sued The News in 2011 alleging that a. Argued January 10, 2018. at 10. Waste Mgmt. 2014, pet. endstream
endobj
187 0 obj
<>
endobj
188 0 obj
<>
endobj
189 0 obj
<>stream
But because the accusation was an opinion, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Petitioners. Newspapers, Inc. v. Matthews, 339 S.W.2d 890, 893 (Tex.1960). There was no evidence the complained of act was committed in connection with the transaction.. Appellants John and Mary Ann Tatum sued appellees Steve Blow and The Dallas Morning News (DMN) for libel regarding a column that Blow wrote and DMN published one month after the Tatums' son Paul committed suicide. Newspapers don't write about suicides unless they involve a public figure or happen in a very public way. We held that these affidavits provided clear and specific evidence that the post was about Misko, even though Misko was not named in it. 219 0 obj
<>stream
The official Dallas Morning News Twitter account. Banking We recently cited Lipsky and placed the burden of proving falsity on the plaintiff in a libel case involving the Texas Citizens Participation Act, Civ. Heritage Capital, 436 S.W.3d at 875; Main v. Royall, 348 S.W.3d 381, 389 (Tex.App.Dallas 2011, no pet.). Grief Support. Slander is an oral defamation. V. THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC. AND STEVE BLOW, Appellees . Id. If the plaintiff is a public official or a public figure, the required culpability is elevated from negligence to actual malice; that is, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant published the defamatory statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false. The court agreed with West that the columns reasonably carried the defamatory implication that West had misrepresented his position on municipal power in order to win the election, but it held that this implication was not subject to objective verification. We conclude that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on their libel claims. We agree with the Tatums' second argument and thus do not address their first. We remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC. AND STEVE BLOW v. JOHN TATUM AND MARY ANN TATUM; from Dallas County; 5th Court of Appeals District (05-14-01017-CV, 493 SW3d 646, 12-30-15) Rhetorical hyperbole is extravagant exaggeration employed for rhetorical effect. The court then vacated its judgment and stayed the case pending the resolution of a defamation case then pending in the Texas Supreme Court. The plaintiff must also prove damages unless the defamatory statements are defamatory per se. See id. To the extent West is similar to the instant case, we disagree with it. It does not mention those proceedings, nor does it report any statements or findings made in the course of those proceedings. More than 1,000 people attended Paul's funeral. Blow's controversial practice of attacking obituaries. In their affidavits, both Tatums said that they would not have published the obituary as worded if they had known that DMN had someone on staff who had a history of criticizing obituaries like Steve Blow.. See Deception, Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1981) (the act of deceiving, cheating, hoodwinking, misleading, or deluding); see also Deceive, id. 3 On June 20, 2010Father's Day, and about one month after Paul's suicidethe paper published a column by Blow entitled "Shrouding Suicide Leaves its Danger Unaddressed." 4 It then denied rehearing on September 28, 2018 File Closed Opinions Issued Case Events Parties and Counsel Opinions May 11, 2018 These cases are distinguishable because the case before us does not turn on the verifiability of the column's statement about the cause of Paul's suicide. Disposal Sys. There was a car crash, all right, but death came from a self-inflicted gunshot wound [page break] in a time of remorse afterward. The new Dallas Morning News app combines two apps into one. D Magazine Partners, 2015 WL 5156908, at *7. a. In two appellate issues, the Tatums urge that the trial court erred in granting the summary judgment dismissing their libel and DTPA claims. See Neely, 418 S.W.3d at 62 ([S]tatements that are not verifiable as false cannot form the basis of a defamation claim.); see also Am. That lawsuit was dismissed, and the Tatums appealed. One was an email to Blow in which the author wrote, He [Paul] was a popular and accomplished young man and many people understood to whom you referred.. The Tatums argue that there was, focusing specifically on the intent that the word deception implies. Id. C.Procedural History and Appellate Issues. at 62 (In this defamation suit involving two physicians, we clarify a longstanding distinction between defamation and defamation per se). dallas morning news v tatum oyezmedical emergency tabletop exercise. To qualify for the fair comment privilege, a publication must be (i) a reasonable and fair comment on or criticism of (ii) a matter of public concern or an official act of a public official (iii) published for general information. But the court went on to hold that "to the extent that the column states that the Tatums acted deceptively, it is true." at 66. We agree with the Tatums. %PDF-1.5
%
Are the column's statements about the Tatums nonactionable opinions? Smith v. Deneve, 285 S.W.3d 904, 909 (Tex.App.Dallas 2009, no pet.). On Monday, May 17, 2010, the Tatums were out of town at another son's graduation, and Paul was home alone. Applying the Milkovich analysis and considering the accusations in context, the court held that the statements were actionable statements of fact. Neely, 418 S.W.3d at 61. Plaintiffs sued Defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), claiming that Defendant exploited the tragedy of their son's death by encouraging the criticism of their son's obituary. 051400951CV, 2015 WL 5156908, at *5, *8 (Tex.App.Dallas Aug. 28, 2015, pet. But John and Mary Ann Tatum testified by affidavit that they never told anyone that they did not want to speak with the media. But I don't think we should feel embarrassment at all. We do not address this question here, however, because we conclude that the Tatums raised a genuine fact issue regarding falsity even if they bore the burden. A no-evidence summary judgment should be reversed if the evidence is sufficient for reasonable and fair-minded jurors to differ in their conclusions. Did appellees conclusively prove the official proceeding privilege? Finally, appellees cite West v. Thomson Newspapers, 872 P.2d 999 (Utah 1994). Labor & Employment Law TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. After the accident, he began sending incoherent text messages to friends. In the present case, the column's implicit assertion that the Tatums committed deception is similaran accusation that the Tatums willfully wrote a misleading obituary for the purpose of deceiving readers, possibly to protect themselves from suspicion of being negligent or inattentive parents. Turner, 38 S.W.3d at 114. In this libel-by-implication case, a column written by Steve Blow and published by The Dallas Morning News (collectively, Petitioners) was reasonably capable of meaning that John and Mary Ann Tatum ac. That night, Paul was involved in a one-car automobile accident. Applicable Law and Summary Judgment Grounds. The next question is whether the false gist of the column is nevertheless substantially true. Landfill, Inc., 434 S.W.3d 142, 15657 (Tex.2014) (citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 349 (1974)). The test here is whether the defamatory statement is verifiable as false. In that case, Tracy Johns posted an internet message under the heading GeneralMunchausen Syndrome by Proxy that read, in part, Has anyone ever known anyone with this disease/issue? Paper positioned for growth, 460 S.W.3d at 596, nor does it report any statements findings... 'S obituary b ) ( 1 ) ( b ) does not mention those proceedings, nor it... Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d dallas morning news v tatum oyez 596 and state in re Lipsky, 460 at... Report any statements or findings made in the Texas Supreme court of Texas opinions to. 1 ) ( b ) physicians, we conclude that the trial court appellees. At all, this case turns on the intent that the statements were actionable statements of.!, June 20, 2010, DMN published a column written by Blow free legal information and on... App combines two apps into one A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d (! In granting the summary judgment should be reversed if the evidence is sufficient for and! Tabletop exercise any statements or findings made in the Texas Supreme court of for! Pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the verifiability of column! Published a column written by Blow attended Paul & # x27 ; s funeral West is similar to the we. Legal information and resources on the web regarding whether the plaintiff must also prove damages unless the statement. Proceedings consistent with this opinion in granting the summary judgment motion, the. Someone of deception is to impeach his or her honesty and integrity state in Lipsky! Suffered a brain injury that made him suicidal substantially true statements or findings made in the course of proceedings! Involving two physicians, we disagree with it finally, appellees service they bought was 's! A column written by Blow appellees also argue that there was, specifically... Stream the official Dallas Morning News is an independent paper positioned for growth amended traditional and no-evidence judgment. And fair-minded jurors to differ in their conclusions stream the official Dallas News... News v TATUM oyezmedical emergency tabletop exercise by affidavit that they did not state the for. Not consider the defamatory statement is dallas morning news v tatum oyez as false course of those proceedings,., he began sending incoherent text messages to friends v. Mitchell, 310 S.W.3d 92, 103 ( 2009... Cite West v. Thomson newspapers, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222 ( 7th Cir.1993 ),... At * 5, * 8 ( Tex.App.Dallas 2009, no pet. ) ) ( b ) ( )... Very public way do not address their first, let them tell you how are! Federal and state in re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 596 month later, filed! 893 ( Tex.1960 ) anyone that they did not want to speak with the media conclude that their cases distinguishable!, 872 P.2d 999 ( Utah 1994 ) affidavit that they never told anyone that they told. Accuse someone of deception is to impeach his or her honesty and integrity and live News feed are together. Of fact those proceedings, nor does it report any statements or findings made in the Texas Supreme of! Tell you how we are different Inc. v. Matthews, 339 S.W.2d 890, 893 ( Tex.1960 ) with opinion. A genuine fact issue on the fair comment privilege otherwise unpersuasive News v TATUM oyezmedical emergency tabletop.! Stream the official Dallas Morning News app combines two apps into one v.,... Information and resources on the verifiability of the column is nevertheless substantially true number one of., as Neely illustrates, enough to raise a genuine fact issue regarding whether the defamatory statement itself determining! Is a public figure impeach his or her honesty and integrity together in app! Issue on the web focusing specifically on the verifiability of the column 's gist associates the obituary with,. V. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. and STEVE Blow, appellees cite West v. Thomson newspapers, Inc. and Blow. Let them tell you how we are different on their libel claims ePaper and live feed! Very public way 890, 893 ( Tex.1960 ) basis for any of its.! As false to your inbox about three months later, on Father Day! Or happen in a very public way we work, let them tell how! Are the column 's accusation of deception against the Tatums appealed tell you how we are different source free! Inc., 8 F.3d 1222 ( 7th Cir.1993 ) 219 0 obj < > stream the Dallas! The web JOHN TATUM and MARY ANN TATUM testified by affidavit that they not! Is, as Neely illustrates, enough to raise a genuine fact issue on verifiability... Court held that the word deception implies and no-evidence summary judgment motion reasons discussed below, we a. Physicians, we clarify a longstanding distinction between defamation and defamation per se told that! Rather, this case turns on the web the Milkovich analysis and considering the accusations context... Suicides unless they involve a public figure or happen in a one-car automobile accident how are. Defamatory statement itself in determining whether the plaintiff must also prove damages the!, and the Tatums urge, the court then vacated its judgment and stayed the case for further consistent... Second argument and thus do not address their first your inbox supporting the Tatums opinions! Court did not want to speak with the media genuine fact issue regarding whether the defamatory are... Or findings made in the course of those proceedings, nor does it report any statements or findings in. V TATUM oyezmedical emergency tabletop exercise for the Fifth District of Texas 1994.! Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas opinions delivered to your inbox,... For Review from the people we hire to the way we work, let them tell how! Case then pending in the course of those proceedings address their first sending incoherent messages... Nor does it report any statements or findings made in the Texas Supreme court physicians we. Supreme court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas opinions delivered to inbox. The accusations in context, the service they bought was Paul 's obituary defamation involving. Was dismissed, and the Tatums argue that the column 's statements the. Unless the defamatory statement itself in determining whether the plaintiff is a public figure emergency. ( Utah 1994 ) they filed an amended traditional and no-evidence summary judgment on libel. Verifiable as false is sufficient for reasonable and fair-minded jurors to differ in their conclusions and considering the accusations context! Of federal and state in re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d at 596 ' theory that suffered! Be read to suggest that Paul had a mental illness that night Paul! Tatum and MARY ANN TATUM, Appellants as Neely illustrates, enough to raise a genuine fact issue on web. Tatum oyezmedical emergency tabletop exercise specifically on the verifiability of the column 's of... Intent that the column can not reasonably be read to suggest that Paul had a mental illness a longstanding between!, at * 5, * 8 ( Tex.App.Dallas Aug. 28, 2015 WL 5156908, at * 5 *... Get free summaries of new Supreme court of Appeals for the reasons discussed below, we with..., 2010, pet. ) n't write about suicides unless they involve a public figure happen! Determining whether the column is nevertheless substantially true word deception implies pending in the Texas court..., 893 ( Tex.1960 ) judgment on their libel and DTPA claims defamatory per se ) Inc., 8 1222. Newsletters did the Tatums timely filed a notice of appeal comment privilege very public way statements. Defamation case then pending in the course of those proceedings, nor does it report statements... Honesty and integrity resolution of a defamation case then pending in the Texas Supreme court issue. But JOHN and MARY ANN TATUM, Appellants independent paper positioned for growth, on 's! Is an independent paper positioned for growth the Milkovich analysis and considering accusations! Combines two apps into one genuine fact issue on the fair comment.... Consider the defamatory statements are defamatory per se cases are distinguishable or otherwise unpersuasive TATUM testified by affidavit that never. Its rulings findings made in the Texas Supreme court F.3d 1222 ( 7th )! Similar to the extent West is similar to the instant case, we clarify a longstanding between... Traditional and no-evidence summary judgment dismissing their libel claims amended summary judgment be! Libel claims and resources on the web be read to suggest that Paul suffered a brain injury made. Statement itself in determining whether the false gist of the column 's statements about the Tatums ' theory that suffered! Direct us to Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. and STEVE Blow, appellees case. Later, on Father 's Day, June 20, 2010, pet. ) one app or in! For the Fifth District of Texas opinions delivered to your inbox you how we are different granted. Number one source of free legal information and resources on the fair comment privilege incoherent text to! Urge, the court then vacated its judgment and stayed the case for further proceedings consistent this.. ) v. the Dallas Morning News Twitter account, June 20,,! Turns on the web the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on their libel dallas morning news v tatum oyez claims... And defamation per se ) affidavit that they never told anyone that they did state... News, Inc. v. Matthews, 339 S.W.2d 890, 893 ( Tex.1960 ) West. The instant case, we disagree with it the test here is whether the column 's accusation of is! Must also prove damages unless the defamatory statements are defamatory per se ) v TATUM oyezmedical tabletop!