Sellards v. Express-News Corp.
1985 Tex. App. LEXIS 12715, 702 S.W.2d 677 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
If a published statement is ambiguous and could be interpreted by an ordinary reader as defamatory, a genuine issue of material fact exists, making summary judgment for the defendant improper. The question of how the statement would be interpreted must be decided by a jury.
Facts:
- Darlene Demarais was a passenger in a one-car accident where she sustained serious injuries, while the driver and another passenger were killed.
- Karen Kennedy, a reporter for The Express-News Corporation, wrote articles about the accident.
- An initial article, under Kennedy's byline, stated, 'Police twice gave reports that the terrifying smashup that destroyed the car was a drug-induced suicide but offered no details.'
- Demarais was not named in the first article, but subsequent articles published by the newspaper did name her as one of the victims.
- A later article by Kennedy also mentioned Demarais by name and stated, 'Initial police reports were that drugs were involved, but later reports did not indicate any involvement of drugs.'
Procedural Posture:
- Shannon Sellards, as next friend of Darlene Demarais, sued The Express-News Corporation and Karen Kennedy in a Texas district court (trial court) for libel, slander, and invasion of privacy.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the articles were not libelous concerning Demarais as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- Sellards, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
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 summary judgment for a defendant in a libel case appropriate when a newspaper article contains an ambiguous statement that an ordinary reader could interpret as defamatory toward the plaintiff?
Opinions:
Majority - T. Gilbert Sharpe
No. Summary judgment for a defendant in a libel case is not appropriate when a newspaper article contains an ambiguous statement because the interpretation of that statement is a question of fact for the jury. The statement that the crash was a 'drug-induced suicide' could be taken by an ordinary reader to mean that all occupants, including Demarais, were involved with drugs and suicide, or it could be taken to mean only the driver was involved. Because the statement is ambiguous and its defamatory potential is a matter of interpretation, it must be submitted to a jury to determine how an ordinary reader would have understood it. The court also noted a factual dispute regarding the truth of the statement, as Demarais provided evidence that police reports contained no mention of a 'drug-induced suicide'.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that the determination of a statement's meaning in a libel suit is fundamentally a question for the jury when any ambiguity exists. It serves as a significant check on the power of trial courts to dismiss defamation claims via summary judgment, particularly in cases involving media defendants. By emphasizing the 'ordinary reader' perspective, the decision protects plaintiffs from having their cases dismissed simply because a non-defamatory interpretation is possible, thereby preserving the jury's traditional role in resolving factual disputes over meaning and interpretation.
