Newspaper Appeals $18 Million for Publishing True Story in False Light Case

Pensacola News Journal faces possible insolvency if the Florida Supreme Court upholds an $18 million judgment against it for publishing true facts in a false light case. At issue is the inclusion of true facts about how Joe Anderson, the owner of one of the state’s largest paving companies, killed his wife. The inclusion of those facts in a series on the paving company was viewed as actionable false light — an allegation that a Florida jury accepted.

Anderson admitted that the facts about his killing his wife shortly after he filed for divorce were true but insisted that they were placed in the story in a false way.

The Petitioner’s brief lays out the issue:

The lawsuit was prompted by a series of articles published between December 13, 1998 and July 12, 2000, which concerned work done in Escambia County by Anderson’s road paving company, Anderson Columbia, Inc. The only claim that went to trial was Anderson’s false light claim based on the Pensacola News Journal’s December 14, 1998 story headlined “Company pursues political clout” and inside page headline
“Anderson Columbia keeps eye on state, local politician.” . . . The article contained these three paragraphs in the midst of the “political clout” story:

In 1988, while still on probation and
before his conviction was reversed,
Anderson shot and killed his wife, Ira
Anderson with a 12-gauge shotgun.

The death occurred in Dixie County
just north of Suwanee where days before the
shooting Joe Anderson had filed for divorce
but then had the case dismissed.

Law enforcement officials determined
the shooting was a hunting accident.

The story continued.

A federal judge ruled that by having
the shotgun, Anderson violated his
probation, and the judge added two years to
Anderson’s probation.

Capt. Bob Stanley of the Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,
was one of the officials who went to the
scene of the shooting.

Anderson said that he and his wife
were deer hunting when she walked one way
down a road and he walked the other way,
Stanley recalls. A deer ran between them
and Joe Anderson fired twice. One shot hit
the deer, the other hit his wife.

“One buckshot pellet hit her under the
arm and went through her heart,” Stanley

When investigators arrived on the
scene, he said, they found that the other
people in the hunting party had taken the
deer back to the hunt club and were cleaning

“You have to understand, it’s Dixie
County,” he said. “Back then, they shut
down the schools for the first week of
hunting season.”

He said that Anderson had stayed
behind at the shooting scene, and he
described Anderson as looking “visibly
upset” after the shooting.
Anderson stipulated that the facts set forth in the story were literally true.
In the oral argument, Justice Charles T. Wells expressed concern: “If you can sue somebody for making a true statement, it seems that would be a great impediment to free speech and freedom of the press.”

Of course, false light cases are often based on true facts or they would be brought in defamation.

The tort is defined in Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sec. 652E as:

(1) the portrayal must be found to be “highly offensive to a reasonable person” and

(2) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.

For a copy of Petitioner’s brief, click here
For the full story, click here

4 thoughts on “Newspaper Appeals $18 Million for Publishing True Story in False Light Case”

  1. Pingback: Oscar
  2. Consumer offshoot safeness Commission, in teamwork with the steady named beneath, today announced a discretionary revocation of the following consumer product. The recollectioned notebook computer epitomes are the VAIO VGN-TZ100 series, VGN-TZ200 series, VGN-TZ300 series and VGN-TZ2000 series. Consumers should impede using the revocationed notebook computers right away and junction Sony to fix on if their notebook is affected. Computer gear Disposal – Recycle, supply Or Do Nothing? These days, any computer that is more than 3 years old discretion be noticeably slower in its execution than a computer that has been manufactured in
    the after few months. This in evict has led to the puzzler of what one should do with the in a flash growing stockpile of old computers and other electronic appurtenances. Computer outfit that isn’t enchanted attend to of by an authorized computer recycler is most right to end up in landfills and enhance toxic computer waste. A traditional sized cathode ray tube (CRT) praepostor contains more than two kilos of begin – the toxicity of which has been mercifully known for centuries. Apple, Dell, Gateway, IBM, Lexmark, Hewlett Packard, Epson, NEC – are constant some epitome of computer recycling program. The mark of the c
    omputer recycler trade epitome is that of important destruction. There discretion for the most part be a fee charged by these recyclers to endure old computer tackle (distinctively when it comes to hospital grade bp monitors
    praepostors) but the price of disposal discretion be significantly less than the expenditure of not disposing of the computer munitions, both in terms of unequivocal subject expenditures and likely tariffs to the environment. IBM has done it by selling Average Mass of a Mouse in Grams calling and relying on services. And Apple shook things up with the iPod and
    now the iPhone. If Dell can continue the lessons of squeezing the tariffs from a low-border calling like edifice computers and transcribe that into plateful establish, extricate and work clouds most efficiently, it could win. GE sells billions in appurtenances and services to providers. The spoon out came from the WSJ, which reports sources saying Dell is approaching knit manufacturers

Comments are closed.