Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.
194 F.3d 505 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment precludes a plaintiff from recovering publication damages on non-defamation tort claims without satisfying the 'actual malice' standard. While journalists are not immune from generally applicable laws like trespass and breach of the duty of loyalty committed during newsgathering, recovery is limited to damages proximately caused by the tortious acts themselves, not the subsequent publication.
Facts:
- In early 1992, producers for ABC's 'PrimeTime Live' received a tip alleging that Food Lion supermarkets engaged in unsanitary food-handling practices.
- To investigate the allegations, ABC reporters Lynne Dale and Susan Barnett submitted applications for employment with Food Lion.
- The applications contained false identities, fictitious references, and misrepresented their educational and employment histories, omitting their concurrent employment with ABC.
- Based on these false applications, Food Lion hired Barnett as a deli clerk in a South Carolina store and Dale as a meat wrapper trainee in a North Carolina store.
- Dale worked for one week and Barnett for two weeks.
- While employed, Dale and Barnett used concealed cameras and microphones to secretly record approximately 45 hours of video footage in non-public areas of the stores.
- Some of the secretly recorded footage was used in a November 5, 1992, 'PrimeTime Live' broadcast that was highly critical of Food Lion's practices.
- The truth of the broadcast itself was not challenged by Food Lion in this litigation.
Procedural Posture:
- Food Lion, Inc. sued Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. and its employees in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
- The complaint alleged state-law claims of fraud, breach of the duty of loyalty, trespass, and unfair trade practices, but did not include a claim for defamation.
- Prior to the compensatory damages phase of the trial, the district court ruled that Food Lion could not recover damages for lost profits or diminished stock value, finding they were not proximately caused by the defendants' conduct.
- A jury found all ABC defendants liable for fraud, and found reporters Dale and Barnett liable for breach of the duty of loyalty and trespass.
- The jury awarded Food Lion $1,402 in compensatory damages and $5,545,750 in punitive damages, which were awarded only on the fraud claim.
- Following the trial, the district court granted a remittitur, which Food Lion accepted, reducing the punitive damages award to $315,000.
- The ABC defendants appealed the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law, and Food Lion cross-appealed the ruling that barred it from proving publication damages.
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 the First Amendment preclude a plaintiff from recovering publication damages, such as lost profits and diminished good will, on its claims for trespass and breach of the duty of loyalty without meeting the 'actual malice' standard required for a defamation claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Michael, J.
Yes. The First Amendment prevents a plaintiff from recovering reputational damages stemming from a publication without satisfying the constitutional requirements of a defamation claim. Food Lion's attempt to recover publication damages through torts like trespass and breach of loyalty is an impermissible end-run around the 'actual malice' standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan and affirmed for such purposes in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. The damages Food Lion sought were for reputational injury caused by the broadcast's content, which directly implicates First Amendment protections for speech. While the press is not immune from generally applicable laws, and Dale and Barnett are liable for trespass and breach of the duty of loyalty for their newsgathering methods, the damages must be limited to those proximately caused by those acts, not the subsequent publication. The court reversed the fraud claim, finding that in an at-will employment context, Food Lion could not reasonably rely on any assumed duration of employment, and thus could not claim hiring costs as damages. The breach of loyalty and trespass claims were affirmed because Dale and Barnett intentionally acted against Food Lion's interests for the benefit of their primary employer, ABC, and this tortious act exceeded the scope of Food Lion's consent for them to be on its property.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Niemeyer, J.
Yes, on the First Amendment issue, but the dissent disagrees with the majority's reversal of the fraud verdict. The jury's finding of fraud should have been affirmed because Food Lion suffered a tangible injury. By misrepresenting themselves as bona fide at-will employees, the reporters deprived Food Lion of the normal possibility that its investment in training could lead to a long-term, loyal employee. Unlike a true at-will employee, the reporters had a secret, pre-determined intent to quit within two weeks, meaning there was zero chance of Food Lion recovering its investment. Furthermore, the reporters' implied representation of loyalty was false from the outset, and this deception induced Food Lion to incur training expenses it would not have otherwise, which constitutes recoverable damage from fraud.
Analysis:
This decision significantly shapes media law by drawing a sharp line between liability for unlawful newsgathering and liability for the content of the publication itself. It affirms that journalists are subject to generally applicable tort laws like trespass, preventing news organizations from claiming a special First Amendment immunity for illegal conduct. However, it powerfully reinforces the constitutional protection for published speech by preventing plaintiffs from using these underlying torts to circumvent the high 'actual malice' standard required for defamation claims. The case effectively limits the financial risk of investigative journalism by capping damages for tortious newsgathering at the direct harm caused by the acts themselves (often nominal), rather than allowing massive awards for reputational harm caused by the resulting (and often true) story.
