Kilian v. Doubleday & Co.
367 Pa. 117, 79 A.2d 657 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The defense of truth (justification) in a libel action requires the defendant to prove the substantial truth of the specific defamatory statements made; proving that the plaintiff engaged in other, different wrongful acts is insufficient.
Facts:
- Joseph M. O'Connell, a veteran, wrote an article based on stories he had heard about alleged brutality at a U.S. Army replacement depot in Lichfield, England, commanded by Colonel James A. Kilian.
- At the suggestion of his instructor to make the story "more vivid," O'Connell rewrote the article in the first person, falsely presenting himself as an eyewitness to the events he described.
- The article described specific acts of cruelty, such as soldiers being lashed and clubbed, and personally depicted Colonel Kilian as a cruel "dictator" with "mean eyes" who enjoyed seeing others suffer.
- Doubleday & Company published O'Connell's article in a book titled "The Purple Testament," which was advertised on its jacket as consisting of the authors' "own intimate experiences" and "absolute honesty."
- The book included a footnote, added by the editor, stating that Colonel Kilian had been convicted by a military court of "permitting cruel and unusual punishment."
- In reality, Kilian was acquitted of knowingly or actively participating in the abuse and was convicted only of neglectful permitting.
- O'Connell later admitted during legal proceedings that he had never been to the Lichfield camp.
Procedural Posture:
- Colonel Kilian sued Doubleday & Company for libel in a trial court.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Doubleday & Company.
- The trial court denied Kilian's motion for a new trial.
- Kilian, as appellant, appealed the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a libel action, does a defendant meet the burden of proving the defense of truth by presenting evidence of misconduct by the plaintiff that is different from, and does not substantiate, the specific defamatory events described in the publication?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Horace Stern
No. In a libel action, a defendant does not meet the burden of proving the defense of truth by presenting evidence of misconduct by the plaintiff that is different from the specific defamatory events described in the publication. The defense of justification requires proving that the libelous statement itself is substantially true, not merely that the plaintiff is of bad character or committed other wrongful acts. O'Connell admitted he was not an eyewitness, making his first-person account entirely false in that respect. The witnesses Doubleday produced testified to different incidents of abuse, which did not prove the truth of the specific events O'Connell narrated, such as lashings or a wounded soldier being forced on a hike. Citing legal authorities, the court emphasized that 'the misconduct relied upon in justification must be proved as broad as the charge.' Because there was no evidence supporting the truth of the specific allegations in the article, the trial court erred by allowing the jury to consider the defense of truth.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a fundamental principle of libel law: the defense of truth must directly address the 'sting' of the specific libelous statement. It prevents a defendant from defaming a person with specific false allegations and then defending the lawsuit by unearthing unrelated misdeeds. The ruling solidifies the requirement that the evidence for justification must be tethered to the actual defamatory charge, ensuring that libel litigation remains focused on the veracity of the publication itself, rather than becoming a broad inquiry into the plaintiff's entire life or character.
