Torts - Deron R. Hicks

• Publication year: 2006

Tortsby Deron R. Hicks^*

I. Defamation

Travis Riddle had achieved a certain degree of notoriety in his hometown of Brunswick, Georgia as a result of his pursuit of a musical career as a rapper.¹ In particular, Riddle's music had been played on the local radio station in Brunswick, WSEG 104.1, by disc jockey Antonio Warrick. Riddle's fame, such as it was, did not appear to extend beyond his hometown. Nonetheless, on August 15, 2002, Warrick, during the course of his show on WSEG 104.1, "began receiving telephone calls from listeners who had heard rumors that Riddle [had] murdered Josephine Howard, a woman who was Riddle's girlfriend and is the mother of his young son."² Exactly what was aired by Warrick was a matter of some dispute. However, several witnesses "recounted hearing one or more reports that Riddle had killed Howard and that the police were looking for her body."³ Riddle's mother recalled hearing a male broadcaster say that Riddle had, in fact, murdered Howard. When Riddle learned of the telephone calls and the information that was being broadcast by Warrick, he called Warrick to complain. Riddle's call was recorded and subsequently aired. Apparently, the rumors regarding Riddle's girlfriend had arisen after she had failed to appear for work, and her mother had filed a missing persons report. The girlfriend, however, was very much alive.⁴

Thereafter, Riddle brought suit against the owner of WSEG 104.1, Golden Isles Broadcasting, LLC ("Golden Isles"), for defamation. Golden Isles moved for summary judgment on the basis that Riddle was a public figure, and as such, he could not demonstrate that Golden Isles had acted with actual malice.⁵ The superior court granted the motion for summary judgment, and Riddle appealed.⁶ In Riddle v. Golden Isles Broadcasting, LLC,⁷ the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the superior court's decision and held that the superior court erred in finding that Riddle was a public figure.⁸ As the court of appeals noted in its opinion, the critical "issue in this appeal is whether Riddle is a private or a public figure."⁹ Nonpublic figures must only prove that a defendant acted with ordinary negligence.¹⁰ On the other hand, public figures must submit proof by clear and convincing evidence of actual malice on the part of the defendant.¹¹ The court of appeals first pointed out that the trial court's opinion failed to distinguish whether Riddle was considered a general public figure or a limited purpose public figure.¹² Accordingly, the court of appeals was required to determine whether the record supported "a finding that Riddle was a public figure under either analysis."¹³ The court first turned to the issue of whether Riddle was a general purpose public figure.¹⁴ "A person is a general purpose public figure 'only if he is a "celebrity[,]" his name a "household word" whose ideas and actions the public in fact follows with great interest.'"¹⁵ As the court of appeals graciously stated, "[T]he evidence of Riddle's celebrity is far from clear."¹⁶ It was clear, however, that Riddle "was not a household name."¹⁷ As such, although "Riddle may have been gaining some popularity in local music circles, the evidence [did] not demonstrate that he had achieved the degree of celebrity and influence typical of a general purpose public figure."¹⁸

The court next turned to the issue of whether Riddle may have been a limited purpose public figure.¹⁹ A limited purpose public figure is " 'an individual [who] voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.'"²⁰ Under the applicable analysis, the court must isolate the public controversy at issue, examine the plaintiff's involvement in the particular controversy, and determine whether the alleged defamation related to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy.²¹ As noted by the court of appeals, the superior court had "failed to identify a public controversy in this case—the first and most fundamental step in determining whether a person is a limited purpose public figure."²²

The court of appeals held that the rumors about Riddle's girlfriend did not rise to the level of a public controversy.²³ Likewise, even the issue of the brief disappearance of Riddle's girlfriend "had no ramifications for the general public."²⁴ Accordingly, "[b]ecause there was no public controversy, the record [did] not support a finding that Riddle was a limited purpose public figure."²⁵ As the record did not support a finding that Riddle was either a general purpose public figure or a limited purpose public figure, the court of appeals held that the superior court had erred in requiring Riddle "to prove that Golden Isles acted with actual malice in broadcasting the alleged[ly] defamatory statements. As a private person, he need only produce evidence from which a jury could infer that Golden Isles acted with ordinary negligence."²⁶

Shortly after the decision in Riddle, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued its decision in Sewell v. Trib Publications, Inc.,²⁷ in which the court again addressed the issue of whether a plaintiff in a slander case was a limited purpose public figure. In Sewell the plaintiff was an assistant professor at the State University of West Georgia. In April 2003 a student in the plaintiff's class contacted a reporter for two news publications in Fayette County, Georgia to complain about statements made by the plaintiff during class which concered the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq. The student also complained that the plaintiff had refused to allow the student to express any contrary opinions during his class.²⁸

As a result of the student's complaints, two newspaper articles were published which quoted the student "as saying that [the plaintiff] had deviated from his stated lesson plan by discussing the war in Iraq, had accused American troops of murdering people, and had likened President Bush to a fascist."²⁹ The articles also claimed that the plaintiff had refused to allow the student to respond to the plaintiff's statements. The plaintiff subsequently brought an action against the newspaper and the reporter seeking damages for libel and slander. In particular, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had negligently failed to verify the accuracy of the allegations in the articles.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure, and as set forth above, was required to prove actual malice. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff thereafter appealed.³⁰ The court of appeals reversed the trial court's finding that the plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure.³¹

As noted above, in order to determine whether an individual is a limited purpose public figure, the court must first identify the public controversy at issue, examine the plaintiff's involvement in the controversy, and determine whether the alleged defamation is related to the plaintiff's participation in the controversy.³² Applying this test, the trial court had classified the plaintiff as a limited purpose public figure.³³ Specifically, the trial court had determined "that a controversy existed in his classroom regarding American military activities in Iraq, that [the plaintiff] initiated the controversy, and that the newspaper articles that formed the basis for his complaint dealt with the controversy."³⁴ The court of appeals, however, held that the legal analysis supporting the superior court's holding was "flawed."³⁵ The court of appeals acknowledged that the public controversy "indeed, concerned American military activities in Iraq."³⁶ However:

[B]y discussing the controversy in his classroom, [the plaintiff] in no way thrust himself to the forefront of the controversy in any public forum, so as to have gained access to media outlets generally unavailable to private citizens or to have assumed any risks incident to acceptance of a public role in the matter.³⁷

Moreover, the plaintiff had made no comments to the media concerning the public controversy and was not an actor in the actual events giving rise to the public controversy.³⁸ As such, "prior to [the] publication of the articles, [the plaintiff] was in no way a public figure with respect to the controversy either in [the Fayette County community] or in the global community."³⁹ Therefore, because the plaintiff was a private figure, the court of appeals held that the negligence standard should apply to the plaintiff's defamation claims.⁴⁰

In Austin v. PMG Acquisition, LLC,⁴¹ the Georgia Court of Appeals analyzed whether statements made in a series of newspaper articles constituted newspaper libel under the Official Code of Georgia Annotated ("O.C.G.A.") section 51-5-2.⁴² The plaintiff's daughter was cited for underage drinking. The citation provided to the plaintiff's daughter indicated that she had a blood alcohol content of 0.21. The plaintiff, an oral surgeon, took his daughter to a hospital for a separate blood alcohol test. According to the plaintiff, the testing machine at the hospital indicated that his daughter had a blood alcohol level of 0.0.⁴³ The plaintiff testified that he "tore the result from the machine, put it in his pocket, and then left with his daughter."⁴⁴ The following morning, the plaintiff "created a lab report on his computer to mirror the one he tore from the testing machine the night before indicating that his daughter's blood alcohol level was 0.0."⁴⁵ The plaintiff subsequently provided a copy of the lab report he created to the police. The police thereafter executed a search warrant at the hospital. At the hospital, the police located a lab report that indicated that the plaintiff's daughter had a blood alcohol content of 0.17. The plaintiff was subsequently arrested and charged with first degree forgery and making false statements.

Over the next year and a half, the defendant...