Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc.
| Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Court | Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District |
| Full case name | Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. |
| Decided | July 18, 1983 |
| Citation(s) |
193 Cal |
| Case opinions | |
| "Actual malice" required under California law for imposition of punitive damages is distinct from the "actual malice" required by New York Times v. Sullivan in order to be liable for defaming a "public figure". The National Enquirer is not a "newspaper" for the purposes of California libel law. | |
Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc., was a decision by the California Court of Appeals which ruled that "actual malice" required under California law for imposition of punitive damages is distinct from the "actual malice" required by New York Times v. Sullivan in order to be liable for defaming a "public figure", and that the National Enquirer is not a "newspaper" for the purposes of California libel law.
Facts
Carol Burnett is an actress. In January 1976 she was dining at the Rive Gauche restaurant in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. She drank "two or three" glasses of wine, but was not drunk. She exchanged parts of her dessert, a chocolate soufflé, with diners at a couple of neighboring tables after they became curious about it. Later, as she was leaving the restaurant, she was introduced to Henry Kissinger, who was also dining in the restaurant.
In March of that year the National Enquirer published a short item about the incident entitled "Carol Burnett and Henry K. in Row". It read, in its entirety:
| “ | In a Washington restaurant, a boisterous Carol Burnett had a loud argument with another diner, Henry Kissinger. Then she traipsed around the place offering everyone a bite of her dessert. But Carol really raised eyebrows when she accidentally knocked a glass of wine over one diner and started giggling instead of apologizing. The guy wasn't amused and 'accidentally' spilled a glass of water over Carol's dress. | ” |
Action
California law specifies that a "newspaper" is protected from all non-economic damages for libel if it publishes a retraction equally conspicuous to the original offending article. The Enquirer published a short retraction in April 1976, saying that
| “ | An item in this column on March 2 erroneously reported that Carol Burnett had an argument with Henry Kissinger at a Washington restaurant and became boisterous, disturbing other guests. We understand these events did not occur and we are sorry for any embarrassment our report may have caused Miss Burnett. | ” |
The retraction proved unsatisfactory to Burnett, who went on to sue the Enquirer for libel in Los Angeles Superior Court. Because Burnett was judged to be a public figure under the standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, she was required to prove "actual malice" --i.e. that the defendant published the item either knowing that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false—on the part of the Enquirer by "clear and convincing evidence". During the trial, it became apparent that the Enquirer had published the story on the basis of the account of a paid informant, Couri Hays. Hays had told the Enquirer that Burnett had taken her souffle around the restaurant in a boisterous manner, but that she was emphatically not drunk. He had not said anything about Kissinger. An Enquirer reporter had attempted to verify the story but had discovered nothing other than that Burnett had shared her souffle and had conversed with Kissinger. Despite this, it had published the story.
California law specifies that punitive damages can be awarded only if an item is published with "actual malice", defined as " that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice." The trial court instructed the jury that it had to find this "actual malice" (as defined in California state law) "by a preponderance of the evidence" in order to award punitive damages.
The jury awarded Burnett $300,000 in compensatory damages and $1.3 million in punitive damages. The trial court reduced this to $50,000 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages.
The Enquirer subsequently appealed on four grounds:
- that the jury had been incorrectly instructed on the grounds on which it could award punitive damages: specifically that it should have been required to find actual malice (as defined in California state law) by "clear and convincing evidence"
- that it should have been protected from noneconomic damages because it had published a retraction
- that members of the jury pool had been tainted because they had been exposed to a "tirade" by Johnny Carson against the Enquirer
- that the punitive damages were excessive.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal ruled against the Enquirer on its first three arguments. The Court distinguished the standard of "actual malice" defined by New York Times vs. Sullivan, which does have to be proved by "clear and convincing evidence" from that required by California state law for the imposition of punitive damages, which need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence. In addition, the Court found that the National Enquirer did not qualify as a "newspaper" under California libel law, and was thus not protected by the fact that it had issued a retraction.[1]
The Court did find in the Enquirer′s favor on the final argument. It found that the award constituted nearly 35% of The Enquirer′s net value, and reduced the punitive damages to $150,000.
References
- ↑ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-07-23. Retrieved 2009-12-11.
Bibliography
- Jennings, Marianne M. (2005). Business: its legal, ethical, and global environment. Cengage Learning. pp. 373–375. ISBN 0-324-20488-4.