Ventura v. Kyle
8 F. Supp. 3d 1115 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a public figure plaintiff in a defamation case presents sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the defendant, as an eyewitness, fabricated an unambiguous event, that evidence is also sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding actual malice, as a jury may infer knowing falsity from the act of fabrication itself.
Facts:
- Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL, published an autobiography titled 'American Sniper' in January 2012.
- The book contained a subchapter alleging that on October 12, 2006, at a bar called McP's, Kyle punched Jesse Ventura after Ventura made disparaging remarks about the Iraq War and fallen SEALs, including stating they 'deserve to lose a few.'
- While the book referred to Ventura as 'Scruff Face,' Kyle confirmed Ventura's identity in subsequent media interviews.
- Ventura denies the altercation occurred and denies making the statements attributed to him.
- Ventura and several witnesses who were with him at McP's on the night in question stated that no verbal confrontation or physical altercation took place.
- Ventura presented photographs of himself taken the day after the alleged incident which show no visible facial injuries.
- At the time of the alleged incident, Ventura was on blood-thinning medication, which he contends would have resulted in noticeable bruising from a punch.
- Kyle maintained the story was true and produced one witness who claimed to have seen the punch and heard Ventura make the offensive statement.
Procedural Posture:
- Jesse Ventura filed a lawsuit against Chris Kyle in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, asserting claims for defamation, appropriation, and unjust enrichment.
- While the lawsuit was pending, Chris Kyle was killed.
- Taya Kyle, as the executrix of Chris Kyle's estate, was substituted as the Defendant in the action.
- The Defendant, Taya Kyle, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the court to dismiss all of Ventura's claims before trial.
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 public figure plaintiff present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the falsity of a statement and the existence of actual malice, thereby precluding summary judgment, when he offers eyewitness testimony and corroborating evidence that an unambiguous event described by the defendant never occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Kyle, District Judge
Yes. A public figure plaintiff presents sufficient evidence to preclude summary judgment where there is a genuine dispute over whether an unambiguous event, which the defendant claimed to have witnessed, actually happened. Ventura has produced sufficient evidence, including eyewitness testimony and photographs showing no injury, from which a jury could conclude that Kyle's statements were materially false. Furthermore, if a jury determines that the punch—an unambiguous event—never happened, it can reasonably infer that Kyle fabricated the story, which would satisfy the 'actual malice' standard of acting with knowledge of the statement's falsity. Because Kyle was an eyewitness to the event he described, his account is not subject to misinterpretation; if it is proven false, it follows that it was fabricated, allowing a jury to find he acted with actual malice.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies how a public figure can satisfy the high burden of proving 'actual malice' at the summary judgment stage. It establishes that direct evidence of a defendant's state of mind is not required when the allegedly defamatory statement concerns an unambiguous event the defendant claims to have personally witnessed. By linking the falsity of the event to the defendant's state of mind, the court provides a pathway for plaintiffs to overcome summary judgment by demonstrating that the defendant simply fabricated the story. This precedent makes it more difficult for eyewitness defendants to prevail on summary judgment merely by asserting their subjective belief in the truth of their statements when faced with strong contradictory evidence.
