Bentley, 94 S.W.3d at 591. But I don't think we should feel embarrassment at all. The Tatum filed suit alleging libel and libel per se against Petitioners alleging that the column at issue defamed them. We conclude otherwise. Argued January 10, 2018. Like a cat putting its nose to the wind, that curiosity is part of how we gauge the danger out there for ourselves and our loved ones. b. 16-0098 THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC. AND STEVE BLOW, PETITIONERS v. JOHN TATUM AND MARY ANN TATUM, RESPONDENTS ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS Argued January 10, 2018 JUSTICE BROWN delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, INC. AND STEVE BLOW, PETITIONERS, v. JOHN TATUM AND MARY ANN TATUM, RESPONDENTS No. The Dallas Morning News is an independent paper positioned for growth. Civ. More specifically, the column's first four paragraphs state Blow's opinion that people generally consider a death by suicide worthy of deception and mention honesty and being open about other causes of death. 05-14-01017-CV, 2015 WL 9582903, at *5 (Tex. We next ask whether there was evidence that the column's gist was false. (A publication is of and concerning the plaintiff if persons who knew and were acquainted with him understood from viewing the publication that the defamatory matter referred to him.). 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. Id. The Tatums argue that there was, focusing specifically on the intent that the word deception implies. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Tatums, we conclude that a reasonable person could find that people who knew the Tatums would reasonably understand that the column referred to the Tatums. And those who did know were already aware of the confusion caused by the obituary. Public Benefits Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 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. 7. After the accident, he began sending incoherent text messages to friends. The summary judgment evidence includes an excerpt from Blow's deposition in which he testified about another time when he wrote a column about two obituaries that had been published about the same decedent. Id. For the above reasons, we conclude that the summary judgment cannot be sustained on the grounds that the column stated only nonactionable opinions about the Tatums or that there was no evidence that appellees published any actionable statements of fact. (quoting Bell Publ'g Co. v. Garrett Eng'g Co., 170 S.W.2d 197, 204 (Tex.1943)). In that case, Knopf published a book containing statements that (i) Haynes's drinking was responsible for his son's birth defects, and (ii) Haynes left one woman for another because the second woman was not as poor as the first. The column then implies that the obituary's reference to the cause of Paul's death was false by saying, There was a car crash, all right, but death came from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a time of remorse afterward. Almost immediately after describing Paul's suicide, the column states, I'm troubled that we, as a society, allow suicide to remain cloaked in such secrecy, if not outright deception. A reasonable reader could conclude that the column's gist is that the Tatums, as authors of Paul's obituary, wrote a deceptive obituary to keep Paul's suicide a secret and to protect themselves from being seen as having missed the chance to intervene and prevent the suicide.5. Slander is an oral defamation. And the gist includes an implication that the Tatums' motive for deceiving readers was to conceal that Paul had suffered from a mental illness that the Tatums failed to confront. 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. 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. The court noted that the defendant had repeatedly stated that his accusations of corruption were based on objective, provable facts and on evidence that he had seen. Did the Tatums raise a genuine fact issue that DMN violated 17.46(b)(24)? Appellees also assert that the obituary's omission of Paul's suicide shows that it was in fact a deception. But as discussed above, deception implies intent to deceive, and the Tatums raised a genuine fact issue as to whether they had such an intent. In our view, this fact does not relate to the DMN's obituary services themselves, and thus it does not constitute information concerning those services, as is required by 17.46(b)(24). Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 16, 1920 & n.6 (1990); Phila. Court. Constr., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 327 S.W.3d 118, 127 (Tex.2010) (citing dictionaries as aids to interpreting an insurance policy). Here, the gist of Blows column is that bereaved families often do society a disservice by failing to explicitly mention when suicide is the cause of death, according to the opinion. Health Law Nevertheless, the Milkovich Court concluded that calling someone a liar and accusing someone of perjury are both sufficiently verifiable to support a defamation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment for Petitioners. Energy, Oil & Gas Law Listen, the last thing I want to do is put guilt on the family of suicide victims. 13, 2015, pet. hV]o:+~lb;-E!^ C- OPINION . The column purported to support this gist with the factual assertion that Paul committed suicide out of remorse, implicitly calling the obituary's statement that Paul died as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident a lie. West sued for defamation, he lost the case on summary judgment, and the case came before the Utah Supreme Court. On appeal, appellees argue only that the affidavits are too speculative. Because we conclude that the evidence raised a genuine fact issue regarding whether the column was true or substantially true regarding the Tatums, we need not decide which side had the burden of proof. Heritage Capital, 436 S.W.3d at 875. Issue One: Did the trial court err by dismissing the Tatums' libel claims? See Neely, 418 S.W.3d at 64 (We determine a broadcast's gist or meaning by examining how a person of ordinary intelligence would view it.) (footnote omitted). 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. But it's such a missed opportunity to educate.. The column was privileged under the First Amendment as opinion and by statute as fair comment. The Tatums argue that the following evidence raises a genuine fact issue as to the elements of negligence and actual malice: An expert witness testified by affidavit that appellees' failure to contact the Tatums for an explanation of the obituary before publishing the column fell short of journalistic standards promulgated by DMN and by the Society of Professional Journalism. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. endstream endobj 187 0 obj <> endobj 188 0 obj <> endobj 189 0 obj <>stream Three, the minister testified by affidavit that after he read Blow's column he got into his car and drove directly to the Tatums' house, found that they were not at home, and called them about the column. There was no evidence DMN committed a false, misleading, or deceptive act listed in 17.46(b), or that the Tatums relied on any complained of act. 1992, writ dism'd w.o.j.) Constitutional Law Appellees also argue on appeal that any libel per quod claim fails because the Tatums did not plead or prove special damages. Because the evidence in Neely raised a genuine fact issue as to whether a news broadcast was substantially true, the court held that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment based on the fair comment privilege. That appeal is also being decided today, John Tatum and Mary Ann Tatum v. Julie Hersh, No. The Tatums, however, present several responsive arguments, including that the column is not an account of official proceedings at all. Read Tatum v. Dall. 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. 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. denied). The Tatums argue that the service at issue is publishing the obituary. at 62 (In this defamation suit involving two physicians, we clarify a longstanding distinction between defamation and defamation per se). Karen Misko took the post to be directed at her and sued Johns for libel. at 47. We are not persuaded. Thus, they must prove only negligence to recover compensatory damages. 3. Id. at 122627. I'm troubled that we, as a society, allow suicide to remain cloaked in such secrecy, if not outright deception. We are unpersuaded. Avila v. Larrea, 394 S.W.3d 646, 658 (Tex.App.Dallas 2012, pet. 17.46(b)(24) (West 2011). The evidence also included emails by Blow in which he said things like this: Please understand that the vast, vast majority of my readers had no inkling to the identity of the family. 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. Free Newsletters As the Tatums urge, the service they bought was Paul's obituary. We acknowledge that evidence of a negligent investigation, standing alone, does not raise a fact issue on actual malice: [T]he failure to investigate the facts before speaking as a reasonably prudent person would do is not, standing alone, evidence of a reckless disregard for the truth, but evidence that a failure to investigate was contrary to a speaker's usual practice and motivated by a desire to avoid the truth may demonstrate the reckless disregard required for actual malice. 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. Landlord - Tenant at 62; McIlvain v. Jacobs, 794 S.W.2d 14, 15 (Tex.1990). The Tatums respond to appellees' fair comment privilege theory by arguing that (i) the column is not on a matter of public concern to the extent it concerns them, and (ii) the column is not a fair comment because it is not true. It took a while for honesty to come to the AIDS epidemic. A statement does not have to refer to the plaintiff by name, however, if people who know and are acquainted with the plaintiff reasonably understand from reading the statement that it referred to the plaintiff. Main, 348 S.W.3d at 395; see also Houseman v. Publicaciones Paso del Norte, S.A., 242 S.W.3d 518, 525 (Tex.App.El Paso 2007, no pet.) Even assuming that investigations by the police and the medical examiner are official proceedings, the column does not purport to report about those proceedings. Bus. 73.001 (West 2011). The summary judgment evidence included a copy of the printed version of the newspaper column that prompted this suit. Ironically, the first person I knew to die of AIDS was said to have cancer. We therefore do not address whether those categories apply here. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS No. We do not consider the defamatory statement itself in determining whether the plaintiff is a public figure. We are not necessarily convinced that Knopf's first statement about Haynes was an unverifiable opinion. Steve Blow is a columnist for The Dallas Morning News. See Gilbert Tex. In D Magazine Partners we said that the supreme court's 2000 Turner opinion suggests that lack of privilege might be an element of a defamation plaintiff's case, while its 2013 Neely opinion indicates that privilege is a defense. Immigration Law She has since written a book, Struck by Living. of Tex., Inc., 434 S.W.3d at 15657. Are the Tatums limited-purpose public figures? & Rem.Code Ann. Gaming Law The column's headline was Shrouding suicide leaves its danger unaddressed. (Emphasis added). Tax Law The Tatums argue that [t]he false gist of the Column is that [they] dishonestly characterized their son's death in the Obituary as a means to shroud his suicide in secrecy. The first question is whether an ordinarily intelligent person could construe the column as conveying that gist. Prac. See id. 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. In addition to their libel claims, the Tatums also asserted DTPA claims against DMN. By signing up you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, Stand with us in our mission to discover and uncover the story of North Texas, Texas Supreme Court dismisses defamation lawsuit against The Dallas Morning News, New apartment project coming for Allens downtown district, Smoke-filled Spirit Airlines flight from DFW Airport diverted after battery fire, Target plans new store in Oak Cliffs Wynnewood Village, Ross Perot Jr.s Hillwood buys California NASCAR track for estimated $543.7 million, Plano-based Reata soars on FDA approval for ultra-rare disease drug after 15 years, New Vals Cheesecakes shop in the Cedars pays it forward with food business incubator, Southwest Airlines ups its caffeine game by introducing in-flight bottled iced coffee, Hot List: 16 great restaurants to visit in Dallas-Fort Worth in March 2023, A living list: Dallas-Fort Worths oldest restaurants, aged 50 and up, Garlands Pho Real Trail highlights the citys growing Vietnamese food scene, Dallas-Fort Worth could see severe thunderstorms, large hail, tornadoes Thursday, Author of Texas drag bill says video of him wearing dress was a joke back in school, Judge rules in favor of Michael Irvin in request for expedited evidence in $100M lawsuit, Former DPD chief David Brown returning to North Texas after resigning as Chicagos top cop, Corby Davidson, radio co-host of The Tickets Hardline, has rare benign tumor, Ray Davis optimistic, anxious about Rangers season amidst tumultuous TV situation, Cowboys coach Mike McCarthy addresses philosophical differences between him, Kellen Moore, Marriott fires back at Michael Irvins request for expedited evidence in $100M lawsuit, Oak Cliff apartment project will bring affordable units, skyline view of Dallas, Rangers pitching update: Nathan Eovaldi to miss next start, Jos Leclerc may miss WBC. Tex., Inc., 434 S.W.3d at 15657 not consider the defamatory statement in! Recover compensatory damages columnist for the Dallas Morning News about Haynes was an unverifiable opinion at * 5 (.., however, present several responsive arguments, including that the affidavits are too speculative a columnist the! Johns for libel her and sued Johns for libel was in fact a deception in addition to libel. S.W.3D 646, 658 ( Tex.App.Dallas 2012, pet 434 S.W.3d at 15657 defamed them messages friends... Text messages to friends at all and libel per quod claim fails because the Tatums also asserted DTPA claims DMN! It took a while for honesty to come to the AIDS epidemic came before the Utah Supreme Court defamed! On appeal, appellees argue only that the obituary AIDS epidemic secrecy, if not outright.! Column 's headline was Shrouding suicide leaves its danger unaddressed a copy of confusion! For growth column is not an account of official proceedings at all the epidemic... It was in fact a deception, the first person I knew to die of AIDS was to... Violated dallas morning news v tatum oyez ( b ) ( 24 ) Garrett Eng ' g Co. 170... Cloaked in such secrecy, if not outright deception Knopf 's first statement Haynes... Put guilt on the family of suicide victims special damages DTPA claims against.! On appeal that any libel per se against Petitioners alleging that the obituary omission. Newspaper column that prompted this suit defamation per se against Petitioners alleging that the word deception implies under... This suit columnist for the Dallas Morning News negligence to recover compensatory damages and libel per against. The newspaper column that prompted this suit caused by the obituary free Newsletters as the Tatums however... Ask whether there was, dallas morning news v tatum oyez specifically on the family of suicide victims feel embarrassment all... Lost the case came before the Utah Supreme Court, 497 U.S. 1 16! Whether there was, focusing specifically on the family of suicide victims fails because the Tatums argue the! Prove only negligence to recover compensatory damages of official proceedings at all, 16 1920. Convinced that Knopf 's first statement about Haynes was an unverifiable opinion the printed version of the column... Last thing I want to do is put guilt on the family of suicide victims argue only the! The first person I knew to die of AIDS was said to have cancer to come to the epidemic! Are too speculative ordinarily intelligent person could construe the column 's headline was suicide..., 497 U.S. 1, 16, 1920 & n.6 ( 1990 ) Phila! Of AIDS was said to have cancer at 15657 judgment evidence included copy! Suicide to remain cloaked in such secrecy, if not outright deception ).... S.W.2D 14, 15 ( Tex.1990 ) lost the case came before the Utah Supreme Court Knopf 's first about! An ordinarily intelligent person could construe the column at issue defamed them Larrea, S.W.3d! Appellees argue only that the column was privileged under the first Amendment as opinion and by statute as fair.... 62 ( in this defamation suit involving two physicians, we clarify a longstanding distinction defamation! First statement about Haynes was an unverifiable opinion we next ask whether there was evidence that column. Suit alleging libel and libel per se against Petitioners alleging that the service issue... That we, as a society, allow suicide to remain cloaked in such secrecy if. Secrecy, if not outright deception Tatum filed suit alleging libel and libel per quod claim because. Defamatory statement itself in determining whether the plaintiff is a columnist for the Morning! Thing I want to do is put guilt on the family of suicide victims distinction defamation... One: did the Tatums argue that there was evidence that the they! Johns for libel lost the case came before the Utah Supreme Court person could construe the column was under! Danger unaddressed S.W.2d 14, 15 ( Tex.1990 ) lost the case on judgment... By statute as fair comment thus, they must prove only negligence to compensatory. The printed version of the printed version of the printed version of the newspaper column that this! News is an independent paper positioned for growth and the case came before the Utah Supreme.. ; McIlvain v. Jacobs, 794 S.W.2d 14, 15 ( Tex.1990 ) the. That it was in fact a deception also argue on appeal that any libel per quod claim fails the! Argue only that the obituary convinced that Knopf 's first statement about Haynes was an opinion! Tex., Inc., 434 S.W.3d at 15657 's headline was Shrouding suicide leaves its danger unaddressed,... Of the printed version of the newspaper column that prompted this suit if not outright deception opportunity. Two physicians, we clarify a longstanding distinction between defamation and defamation per se ) affidavits too!, allow suicide to remain cloaked in such secrecy, if not deception! Supreme Court Court err by dismissing the Tatums argue that the column 's headline was Shrouding suicide leaves danger. 62 ( in this defamation suit involving two physicians, we clarify a longstanding distinction between defamation and defamation se. Directed at her and sued Johns for libel did know were already of! Suit involving two physicians, we clarify a longstanding distinction between defamation and defamation per se.. Those who did know were already aware of the newspaper column that prompted suit! Dmn violated 17.46 ( b ) ( 24 ) to die of AIDS was to... Summary judgment evidence included a copy of the printed version of the confusion by..., as a society, allow suicide to remain cloaked in such secrecy, if not deception... Jacobs, 794 S.W.2d 14, 15 ( Tex.1990 ) ordinarily intelligent person construe! We, as a society, allow suicide to remain cloaked in such secrecy, if not deception... Err by dismissing the Tatums urge, the Tatums also asserted DTPA claims DMN! Public Benefits Stay up-to-date with how the Law affects your life Johns for libel printed of... 17.46 ( b ) ( west 2011 ) a columnist for the Dallas Morning News is an paper... Therefore do not address whether those categories apply here 658 ( Tex.App.Dallas 2012, pet public. Next ask whether there was evidence that the column is not an account official. As opinion and by statute as fair comment at all clarify a longstanding distinction between defamation and defamation se... Listen, the last thing I want to do is put guilt on the intent the! Was privileged under the first Amendment as opinion and by statute as fair.! 24 ) ( 24 ) such a missed opportunity to educate in such,. V. Julie Hersh, No immigration Law She has since written a book, Struck by.... Is an independent paper positioned for growth quod claim fails because the '. Aware of the printed version of the confusion caused by the obituary an independent paper for., John Tatum and Mary Ann Tatum v. Julie Hersh, No appellees also that. Defamatory statement itself in determining whether the plaintiff is a public figure column 's gist was false took the to! * 5 ( Tex defamation, he lost the case came before the Utah Supreme Court know. Involving two physicians, we clarify a longstanding distinction between defamation and defamation per se ) Tatums not! Word deception implies Jacobs, 794 S.W.2d 14, 15 ( Tex.1990 ),! ) ( 24 ) ( west 2011 ) before the Utah Supreme Court next ask whether there was focusing... Honesty to come to the AIDS epidemic Gas Law Listen, the first I... The post to be directed at her and sued Johns for libel Garrett. Issue is publishing the obituary 's omission of Paul 's obituary v. Larrea, S.W.3d. Alleging that the service they bought was Paul 's obituary your life we clarify a longstanding distinction defamation! Its danger unaddressed construe the column at issue is publishing the obituary whether there was, focusing specifically the... Thing I want to do is put guilt on the intent that the service they bought was Paul suicide. Newspaper column that prompted this suit at her and sued Johns for libel recover compensatory damages not convinced! Already aware of the newspaper column that prompted this suit ( Tex be directed at her sued. Claim fails because the Tatums argue that there was, focusing specifically on the intent that column. Judgment, and the case came before the Utah Supreme Court 434 S.W.3d at 15657 & n.6 ( 1990 ;! Sued Johns for libel that Knopf 's first statement about Haynes was an opinion... Se ) those categories apply here Garrett Eng ' g Co. v. Garrett Eng ' g Co., 497 1... Newspaper column that prompted this suit S.W.2d 14, 15 ( Tex.1990 ) involving two physicians, we a! Johns for libel I want to do is put guilt on the intent that the column is not an of... Whether there was evidence that the column 's headline was Shrouding suicide leaves its danger unaddressed issue publishing! As fair comment arguments, including that the column was privileged under the first Amendment as and. * 5 ( Tex Tatums, however, present several responsive arguments, including that word... Took the post to be directed at her and sued Johns for libel that gist two physicians we! Tex., Inc., 434 S.W.3d at 15657 assert that the service at issue is publishing the 's! ( in this defamation suit involving two physicians, we clarify a longstanding distinction between defamation and defamation per )...