Davis v. the Tennessean
2001 Tenn. App. LEXIS 623, 29 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2468, 83 S.W. 3d 125 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff whose reputation is severely tarnished by a criminal conviction for a serious offense is considered 'libel-proof' and cannot maintain a defamation action for a false statement that is closely related to that underlying crime, as they cannot prove the requisite element of reputational injury.
Facts:
- In May 1982, Ronald L. Davis and his co-defendant, Tommy Lee King, entered and robbed a tavern.
- During the robbery, King shot the tavern owner, who died from the wound approximately one week later.
- Davis was subsequently convicted of aiding and abetting second-degree murder for his role in the crime and was sentenced to 99 years in prison.
- In June 1999, The Tennessean newspaper published an Associated Press article reporting on the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision to uphold King's death sentence.
- The article contained an inaccurate sentence stating, 'Before leaving, Davis shot the owner as he lay on the floor.'
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald L. Davis filed a complaint for libel in a Tennessee trial court against The Tennessean, its publisher, and its editor.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, arguing Davis was 'libel-proof.'
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- Davis, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a plaintiff who was convicted of aiding and abetting a murder and sentenced to 99 years in prison 'libel-proof' against a false statement that he was the actual shooter in that same crime, thereby precluding his libel claim for lack of reputational harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Cottrell, J.
Yes. A plaintiff is libel-proof when their reputation is so tarnished by their past actions that they cannot suffer any further reputational harm from a defamatory statement. The basis of a libel action is an injury to a person's character and reputation, and to be actionable, a statement must constitute a serious threat to that reputation. In this case, Davis was convicted of aiding and abetting the very murder that was the subject of the article and was serving a 99-year sentence for it. His public reputation for good character was already destroyed by his participation in this infamous crime. Therefore, the inaccurate attribution of being the shooter, as opposed to an accomplice, could not cause any additional, legally cognizable damage to a reputation that was already 'virtually valueless.' Because he cannot prove the essential element of injury, his claim fails as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts and applies the 'libel-proof' plaintiff doctrine in Tennessee, providing a significant defense for media outlets. It establishes that courts can dismiss defamation claims at an early stage if the plaintiff's pre-existing reputation, particularly concerning the subject matter of the alleged libel, is so poor that no further harm could plausibly result. This precedent makes it exceptionally difficult for convicted criminals to sue for inaccuracies in reports about the crimes for which they were convicted, unless the falsehood is so significant that it harms a separate, untarnished aspect of their reputation.
