# Weaver v. Lancaster Newspapers Inc.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · May 2, 2005 · 2005 Pa. Super. 165

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636700

## Case

- **Full name:** Robin WEAVER, Appellant v. LANCASTER NEWSPAPERS INC., Intelligencer Journal and Oscar Lee Brownstein, Appellees
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** May 2, 2005
- **Citations:** 2005 Pa. Super. 165; 875 A.2d 1093; 33 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1609; 2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 977
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McCAFFERY
- **Judges:** Stevens, McCaffery, Tamilia
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636700

## Opinion text

McCAFFERY, J.,
Concurring:
¶ 1 While the state of the law in this Commonwealth compels my concurrence in the well-reasoned majority Opinion of my esteemed colleague, the Honorable Corr-éale F. Stevens, I am compelled to register my disapproval with the way the “actual malice” standard must be applied in this case. As the majority correctly states, to prove “actual malice” one must demonstrate that the defendant knew the statement was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the publication. Lewis v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 833 A.2d 185, 191 (Pa.Super.2003). This is a rigorous, if not impossible, burden to meet in most circumstances.
¶ 2 In this case, the “actual malice” standard operates to allow an egregious and damaging misstatement of fact regarding a law enforcement officer to be published without any repercussions for the author or for the publication which has disseminated the false statement. 'While I agree that a newspaper should not be held to a standard which would require a thorough investigation of every statement set forth in its editorial section, certainly a contention that a law enforcement officer had previously been arraigned for the sexual abuse of women and children should have triggered a heightened level of caution on the part of a “responsible” publication. This is especially true in that the newspaper had previously published numerous letters to the editor authored by Oscar Lee Brownstein, in which letters Mr. Brownstein had used what the newspaper’s assistant editor characterized as “a lot of rhetorical hyperbole in his writing.” *1104 (Deposition of Earle Dale Cornelius, III, dated 11/30/00 at 9, 27).
¶ 3 Furthermore, it is anathema that we must allow the actual author of the injurious statement, Mr. Brownstein, to evade responsibility and avoid liability merely by professing to have made a mistake. This is particularly troubling in that because the case was only at the summary judgment stage, the trial court’s assessment that Appellant presented insufficient evidence regarding Mr. Brownstein’s alleged “mistake” has effectively stripped Appellant of any chance of redress for the publication which has harmed his reputation in a way which no “retraction” could ever rectify.
¶ 4 Nevertheless, Pennsylvania law requires that the onerous “actual malice” standard be applied. Thus, I am bound to join in the majority in affirming the trial court’s order.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636700. Public record. Not legal advice.