Gibler v. Houston Post Company
310 S.W.2d 377, 1958 Tex. App. LEXIS 1782 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in a libel action does not need to be explicitly named in a defamatory publication to maintain a cause of action, provided that extrinsic evidence allows some recipients of the publication to reasonably identify them. Furthermore, the privilege of 'fair comment' on matters of public concern does not protect false statements of fact or unwarranted extensions of official reports that impute greater misconduct than the original report.
Facts:
- Frank Gibler, a public relations professional, witnessed an incident at the Horizon House Restaurant in the Houston International Airport.
- Gibler observed a restaurant employee ask the Ambassador from India to the United States to move from the public section to a private dining room, mistaking the ambassador for a Black person.
- Gibler reported the incident, and subsequent newspaper articles, including one in The Houston Post, identified Gibler by name as a witness who described the events.
- Following the incident, Houston Mayor Roy Hofheinz conducted an investigation and issued a statement concluding that the event was not an 'international incident' but rather the 'fabrication of a bystander, who gave out an erroneous report.'
- Subsequently, on a KPRC-TV news broadcast, anchor Owen P. Flaherty, an employee of The Houston Post Company, read from a script stating the incident 'was just a case of a person with a loose tongue, given to fabrication, circulating an erroneous report.'
- The television broadcast did not mention Frank Gibler's name.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Gibler (appellant) filed suit against The Houston Post Company and its employee, Owen P. Flaherty (appellees), for libel in a Texas trial court.
- The appellees filed an unsworn motion for summary judgment, asserting that as a matter of law, no genuine issue of material fact existed.
- The trial court granted the summary judgment motion in favor of the appellees, decreeing that Gibler take nothing.
- Gibler (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
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 genuine issue of material fact exist in a libel case, precluding summary judgment, when the plaintiff is not named in the broadcast but can be identified by extrinsic evidence, and when the broadcast's statement may not qualify as a privileged 'fair comment' on an official report?
Opinions:
Majority - Werlein, Justice
Yes, a genuine issue of material fact exists, and summary judgment was improper. A plaintiff can be libeled even without being named if circumstances and extrinsic evidence point to their identity, and a statement that exaggerates an official report may lose the protection of the 'fair comment' privilege. First, the court found a genuine issue of fact as to whether Gibler was the person referred to in the broadcast. Although he was not named, prior newspaper articles had identified him as the source of the report. The court held that testimony from Gibler's acquaintances and colleagues, who understood the broadcast to be about him, was sufficient to create a fact issue for a jury regarding identification. Citing precedent, the court affirmed that it is not necessary for every listener to understand the reference, so long as some reasonably do. Second, the court determined that the broadcast statement was not protected as a 'fair comment' under Texas statute. Flaherty's statement that it was a 'case of a person with a loose tongue, given to fabrication' was an unwarranted extension of the Mayor's report, which only mentioned a single 'fabrication.' The court reasoned that Flaherty's version charged the person with being a habitual liar, which is substantially different and more damaging. Because a false statement of fact is not privileged as fair comment, and Flaherty's statement presented such a factual issue, the privilege did not apply as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that identification in a libel claim can be established through extrinsic evidence, preventing publishers from escaping liability simply by omitting a plaintiff's name. It demonstrates that 'libel by innuendo' is actionable if the audience can connect the defamatory statement to the plaintiff through context. The decision also places a significant limit on the 'fair comment' privilege, clarifying that media outlets cannot embellish or editorialize official reports in a way that creates a more damaging—and potentially false—statement of fact. This serves as a caution to journalists to report accurately on official findings rather than using them as a springboard for independent and more severe accusations.
