Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc.

Last updated
Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc.
Court Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District
Full case name Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc.
DecidedJuly 18, 1983
Citation(s) 193 Cal.Rptr. 206
Case opinions
"Actual malice" required under California law for imposition of punitive damages is distinct from the "actual malice" required by New York Times v. Sullivan in order to be liable for defaming a "public figure". The National Enquirer is not a "newspaper" for the purposes of California libel law.

Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. was a decision by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled that the "actual malice" required under California law for imposition of punitive damages is distinct from the "actual malice" required by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to be liable for defaming a "public figure", and that the National Enquirer is not a "newspaper" for the purposes of California libel law.

Contents

In 1976, the leading U.S. gossip tabloid, the National Enquirer, published a brief column incorrectly implying that actress-comedienne Carol Burnett had been drunk and boisterous in a nightclub encounter with U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Burnett, a passionate campaigner against alcoholism, sued the National Enquirer for libel, persistently, over several years, ultimately settling out-of-court for a reported $200,000. Though offering no witnesses to its defense, initially, the Enquirer argued that it was exempt from liability on legal grounds—particularly on grounds arising from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Initially Burnett sought $10 million, but her attorney sued in California courts for $1.6 million—which a jury awarded Burnett, in actual and punitive damages. However, the presiding court cut the award, and in subsequent appeals the award was reduced to $200,000—though the final settlement was out-of-court. The case was widely regarded as a watershed event in tabloid journalism, and some analysts suggest it may have increased celebrities' willingness to sue tabloids for libel, and dampened tabloids' recklessness in reporting—though others contend it did little to reduce a profitable industry's flouting of the laws against libel. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Facts

In January 1976, the actress Carol Burnett was dining at the Rive Gauche restaurant in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. She drank "two or three" glasses of wine but was not drunk. She exchanged parts of her dessert, a chocolate soufflé, with diners at a couple of neighboring tables after they became curious about it. Later, as she was leaving the restaurant, she was introduced to Henry Kissinger, who was also dining in the restaurant.

In March of that year, the National Enquirer published a short item about the incident, "Carol Burnett and Henry K. in Row". It read, in its entirety:

In a Washington restaurant, a boisterous Carol Burnett had a loud argument with another diner, Henry Kissinger. Then she traipsed around the place offering everyone a bite of her dessert. But Carol really raised eyebrows when she accidentally knocked a glass of wine over one diner and started giggling instead of apologizing. The guy wasn't amused and 'accidentally' spilled a glass of water over Carol's dress.

Action

California law specifies that a "newspaper" is protected from all non-economic damages for libel if it publishes a retraction equally conspicuous to the original offending article. The Enquirer published a short retraction in April 1976:

An item in this column on March 2 erroneously reported that Carol Burnett had an argument with Henry Kissinger at a Washington restaurant and became boisterous, disturbing other guests. We understand these events did not occur and we are sorry for any embarrassment our report may have caused Miss Burnett.

The retraction proved unsatisfactory to Burnett, who went on to sue the Enquirer for libel in Los Angeles Superior Court. Because Burnett was judged to be a public figure under the standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , she was required to prove "actual malice:" that the defendant, which published the item, knew that it was false or had reckless disregard for whether it was true or false by "clear and convincing evidence." During the trial, it became apparent that the Enquirer had published the story on the basis of the account of a paid informant, Couri Hays, who had told the Enquirer that Burnett had taken her souffle around the restaurant in a boisterous manner but that she was emphatically not drunk. He had not said anything about Kissinger.

An Enquirer reporter had attempted to verify the story but had discovered nothing other than that Burnett had shared her souffle and had conversed with Kissinger. Still, the story was published.

California law specifies that punitive damages can be awarded only if an item is published with "actual malice," which is defined as "that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice." The trial court instructed the jury that it had to find the "actual malice" (as defined in California state law) "by a preponderance of the evidence" to award punitive damages.

The jury awarded Burnett $300,000 in compensatory damages and $1.3 million in punitive damages. The trial court reduced this to $50,000 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages.

The Enquirer subsequently appealed on four grounds:

Judgment

The Court of Appeal ruled against the Enquirer on its first three arguments. The Court distinguished the standard of "actual malice" defined by New York Times vs. Sullivan, which had to be proved by "clear and convincing evidence," from that required by California state law for the imposition of punitive damages, which has to be established only by a preponderance of the evidence. In addition, the Court found that the National Enquirer did not qualify as a "newspaper" under California libel and so was not protected by the fact that it had issued a retraction. [8]

The Court, however, found for the Enquirer in its final argument. It found that the award was nearly 35% of the net value of The Enquirer and reduced the punitive damages to $150,000.

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court ruling that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), if the emotional distress was caused by a caricature, parody, or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would not have interpreted as factual.

<i>Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto February 20, 1995- July 20, 1995. 2 S.C.R. 1130 was a libel case against the Church of Scientology, in which the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted Ontario's libel law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Carol Burnett American actress, comedian and singer

Carol Creighton Burnett is an American actress, comedian, singer, and writer. She is best known for her groundbreaking comedy variety show The Carol Burnett Show, which originally aired on CBS. It was one of the first of its kind to be hosted by a woman. She has achieved success on stage, television and film in varying genres including dramatic and comedic roles. She has also appeared on various talk shows and as a panellist on game shows.

Actual malice in United States law is a legal requirement imposed upon public officials or public figures when they file suit for libel. Compared to other individuals who are less well known to the general public, public officials and public figures are held to a higher standard for what they must prove before they may succeed in a defamation lawsuit.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation. The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or person running for public office, not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.

Malice is a legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party. Malice is either expressed or implied. For example, malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a human being. Malice is implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. Malice, in a legal sense, may be inferred from the evidence and imputed to the defendant, depending on the nature of the case.

Fair comment is a legal term for a common law defense in defamation cases. It is referred to as honest comment in some countries.

In US law, false light is a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to protection from publicity that creates an untrue or misleading impression about them. That right is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

Tabloid journalism Style of largely sensationalist journalism

Tabloid journalism is a popular style of largely sensationalist journalism, which takes its name from the tabloid newspaper format: a small-sized newspaper also known as half broadsheet. The size became associated with sensationalism, and tabloid journalism replaced the earlier label of yellow journalism and scandal sheets. Not all newspapers associated with tabloid journalism are tabloid size, and not all tabloid-size newspapers engage in tabloid journalism; in particular, since around the year 2000 many broadsheet newspapers converted to the more compact tabloid format.

Neil Papiano was an American lawyer, and managing partner of Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch. He received Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts degrees from Stanford University, the latter in 1957, and an LL.B. from Vanderbilt University Law School in 1961. He was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1961.

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985), was a Supreme Court case which held that a credit reporting agency could be liable in defamation if it carelessly relayed false information that a business had declared bankruptcy when in fact it had not.

<i>Westmoreland v. CBS</i>

Westmoreland v. CBS was a $120 million libel suit brought in 1982 by former U.S. Army Chief of Staff General William Westmoreland against CBS, Inc. for broadcasting on its program CBS Reports a documentary entitled The Uncounted Enemy: A Vietnam Deception. Westmoreland also sued the documentary's narrator, investigative reporter Mike Wallace; the producer, investigative journalist and best-selling author George Crile, and the former CIA analyst, Sam Adams, who originally broke the story on which the broadcast was based.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307),. The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company was a personal injury tort case decided in Orange County, California in February 1978 and affirmed by a California appellate court in May 1981. The lawsuit involved the safety of the design of the Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the Ford Motor Company. The jury awarded plaintiffs $127.8 million in damages, the largest ever in US product liability and personal injury cases. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company was one of the most widely publicized of the more than a hundred lawsuits brought against Ford in connection with rear-end accidents in the Pinto. The trial judge reduced the jury's punitive damages award to $3.5 million.

Goldwater v. Ginzburg was a 1969 United States court ruling on defamation.

<i>Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox</i> Case concerning online defamation

Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox is a 2011 case from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon concerning online defamation. Plaintiffs Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Crystal Cox for maintaining several blogs that accused Obsidian and Padrick of corrupt and fraudulent conduct. The court dismissed most of Cox's blog posts as opinion, but found one single post to be more factual in its assertions and therefore defamatory. For that post, the court awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. This case is notable for the court's ruling that Cox, as an internet blogger, was not a journalist and was thus not protected by Oregon's media shield laws, although the court later clarified that its ruling did not categorically exclude blogs from being considered media and indicated that its decision was based in part upon Cox offering to remove negative posts for a $2,500 fee. In January 2014 the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment awarding compensatory damages to the bankruptcy trustee. It also ordered a new trial on the blog post at issue.

Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). In the case, the Court held that departure from responsible reporting and unreasonable reporting conduct alone were not sufficient to award a public figure damages in a libel case. However, the Court also ruled that if reporters wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, which included ignoring obvious sources for their report, plaintiffs could be awarded compensatory damages on the grounds of actual malice.

Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case of libel brought by George Rosenbloom against Metromedia. This case was responsible for establishing the idea that the knowingly and recklessly false standard for defamatory statements should apply to private individuals as well as public officials in matters of public concern. Concluding that the story was a matter of public concern, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not matter that Rosenbloom was a private citizen; however, the evidence provided in the case did not support the damages awarded to Rosenbloom. The decision was made June 7, 1971 with a 5-3 decision.

References

  1. ↑ Scott, Vernon, "Carol Burnett launches trial balloon,", March 22, 1981, United Press International (UPI), retrieved January 1, 2017.
  2. ↑ Lindsey, Robert, "Carol Burnett given 1.6 million in suit against National Enquirer,", March 27, 1981, The New York Times , retrieved January 1, 2017.
  3. ↑ "How the Supermarket Tabloids Stay Out of Court," January 4, 1991, The New York Times , retrieved January 1, 2017.
  4. ↑ Langberg, Barry (libel attorney for Carol Burnett and others), opinion essay: "Tabloids' Lies Abuse the First Amendment," August 12, 1991, Los Angeles Times, retrieved January 1, 2017.
  5. ↑ Beam, Alex, "Tabloid Law," Part 1 of two parts, August, 1999, The Atlantic Monthly, retrieved January 1, 2017.
  6. ↑ Beam, Alex, "Tabloid Law," Part 2 of two parts, August, 1999, The Atlantic Monthly, retrieved January 1, 2017.
  7. ↑ Andrews, Travis M., "Dr_ Phil and wife Robin sue the National Enquirer for $250 million, citing defamation," July 14, 2016, The Washington Post, retrieved January 1, 2017.
  8. ↑ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-07-23. Retrieved 2009-12-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.