finding that “[a]l-though an article is not made defamatory by being unfair, the Philadelphia Daily News acted in an even handed manner by extensively quoting the attorney for the Tuckers... ”
How later courts described this case
- finding that “[a]l-though an article is not made defamatory by being unfair, the Philadelphia Daily News acted in an even handed manner by extensively quoting the attorney for the Tuckers... ”
- stating that in Pennsylvania, “[i]t is the function of the court to determine whether the challenged publication is capable of defamatory meaning.”
- reasoning that in determining whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning, the Court should view the statement in its context
- holding that plaintiff was required to establish evidence of defendant's state of mind in order to survive preliminary objections
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION
Justice SAYLOR.
I join the majority opinion, except for its determination that a cause of action would be stated upon the filing of an amended complaint alleging some unequivocal communication *636 to Appellant-newspapers that the Tuckers’ loss of spousal consortium claim did not include a claim for loss of sexual relations. Since the Tucker II Complaint was filed as of record and contained a boilerplate claim for loss of consortium, which, by definition encompassed a claim for damage to the Tuckers’ sexual relationship, in my view, knowledge on the part of Appellant-newspapers of some greater demonstrated commitment on the part of the Tuckers to a more restricted damages claim would be necessary to implicate the kind of reckless disregard for the truth essential to a defamation claim in the present circumstances.