Broughton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
161 N.C. App. 20, 588 S.E.2d 20, 32 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1313 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A publication is not libelous per se unless it is defamatory on its face without resort to innuendo or extrinsic facts. Furthermore, reporting on information contained in public records does not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy by intrusion.
Facts:
- Celeste G. Broughton and her husband, Robert Broughton, separated in 1968 and subsequently engaged in protracted and extensive litigation against each other.
- In 1995, Sarah Avery, a reporter for The News and Observer (N&O), began researching the Broughtons' litigation for a news story.
- Avery researched public court files and conducted interviews to gather information for her article.
- On December 3, 1995, the N&O published Avery's article titled "Lawsuit in Superior Court Latest Volley in Broughtons’ War," which detailed the history of the litigation, Celeste Broughton's financial status, and her involvement in at least two dozen lawsuits.
- During her research, Avery went to Broughton's residence unannounced for what she termed a "social visit," and the two spoke on the front porch.
- Broughton did not ask Avery to leave her property during the visit.
Procedural Posture:
- Celeste Broughton sued McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., and its employees in the Superior Court of Wake County (trial court), alleging libel per se, invasion of privacy, fraud, and other claims.
- The trial court granted defendants' motion for a more definite statement, requiring Broughton to file an amended complaint.
- Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint seven days late.
- Broughton moved to strike the answer and for entry of default; the trial court denied her motions.
- Following discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court denied Broughton's motion and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Broughton's claims.
- Broughton's motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court.
- Broughton (appellant) appealed the trial court's orders to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, where McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. et al. were the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a newspaper article that reports on protracted and public litigation, using information from public court records, constitute libel per se or an actionable invasion of privacy by intrusion?
Opinions:
Majority - Steelman, Judge
No, a newspaper article reporting on public litigation using public records is not libel per se or an invasion of privacy. For a statement to be libelous per se, it must be defamatory on its face, susceptible of only one meaning, without considering innuendo or the plaintiff's interpretation of what the author intended to mean. Here, Broughton's claim relied on what she believed the article intended to convey, which is not the legal standard. The court found that the article, when read on its face, was not defamatory as a matter of law. Regarding the invasion of privacy claim, North Carolina only recognizes the tort of intrusion, which requires a physical or sensory interference into a person's private affairs. Researching public court records cannot be an intrusion because there is no expectation of privacy in public documents. The reporter's conduct in gathering information did not rise to the 'highly offensive' standard required for an intrusion claim.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for plaintiffs in defamation and privacy cases against the media in North Carolina. It affirms the principle that libel per se must be evident from the 'four corners' of the publication, protecting publishers from liability based on a reader's subjective or sensitive interpretation. The case also narrowly construes the invasion of privacy tort, confirming that North Carolina does not recognize 'public disclosure of private facts' or 'false light' claims, and that reporting on public records is a protected activity. This provides significant protection for journalists reporting on court proceedings and other public matters.
