Georgia Appellate Court Not Persuaded by Public Figure in Defamation Suit Brought Against Newspaper
 
June 3, 2008
 

A Georgia appellate court affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a newspaper in a defamation case, holding that the newspaper provided sufficient evidence to negate a public figure’s claim of actual malice.

In Torrance v. Morris Publishing Group, LLC, plaintiff William Torrance, the city manager of Vidalia, Georgia, brought an action against The Savannah Morning News and a police investigator, alleging that he was defamed by a 2003 series of articles.

The Savannah Morning News series, “Justice Betrayed,” examined the circumstances surrounding the death of a 28-year-old man named Henry Dickerson, Jr., as well as the ensuing investigation by law enforcement and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI). Dickerson, a convicted “peeping Tom,” was found dead at the bottom of a pool at the home of Vidalia’s city attorney. The night before his death, it was reported that, before being scared off by Torrance, Dickerson had tried to open the bedroom window of Torrance’s daughter. Torrance alleged the series defamed him because, among other things, it implied he was responsible for Dickerson’s death.

In libel litigation, a public-figure plaintiff bears the burden under the First Amendment to prove “actual malice,” that is, actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to the statement’s truth or falsity. To combat Torrance’s actual malice claim, the newspaper’s reporters submitted affidavits attesting that they thoroughly researched and carefully wrote and edited the stories, and that at no time did they believe or suspect the information about Torrance was false. In addition, the reporters detailed their sources, such as: copies of police reports, crime scene logs, and notes; pleadings and depositions in a related action; personal interviews with city council members, police and GBI investigators; and even Torrance himself.

Torrance countered that he had provided sufficient evidence of actual malice to create an issue for the jury. He argued that the newspaper failed to “fully” investigate the circumstances regarding his daughter’s window, and that one of the reporters was “hostile and agitated” with him during an interview.

The appeals court agreed with the trial judge that Torrance failed to meet his heavy burden of actual knowledge or reckless disregard of truth or falsity. The court noted that “imposing liability on the basis of defendant’s hatred, spite, ill will, or desire to injure is clearly impermissible” under the subjective constitutional standard.

In 2006, the Georgia appellate court affirmed a summary judgment granted to the newspaper defendants in a companion case brought by the plaintiff’s daughter. With respect to the daughter’s claims, the appellate court held the articles were privileged because they fairly and honestly reported the information contained in police reports and because the reporters negated any showing of actual malice.

For more information, email Corinne R. Simon at corinne.simon@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1.888.688.8500.