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 AND DISSENTING OPINION
Justice NIGRO.
I join the majority insofar as it reasons and concludes that the published statement that the Tuckers claimed $10 million for damages to their sexual relationship was capable of a defamatory meaning. However, I disagree with the majority’s decision to dismiss the Tuckers’ complaint with leave to re-plead “only in the event that the Tuckers are able to allege, in good faith, that their attorney unequivocally told these specific Appellant-newspapers that the loss of consortium claim did not include a claim for loss of sexual relations.” Op. at 633, 848 A.2d at 135. In my view, at this early stage in the proceedings, before any discovery has even taken place, the majority places too great a burden on the Tuckers to plead specific facts underlying their claim of actual malice and, as a result, prematurely limits the facts on which they will be permitted to rely. As the Superior Court below recognized, “proving actual malice calls into question the state of mind of the one who published the allegedly defamatory statement and, therefore, the issue is not one that readily lends itself to summary disposition.” 757 A.2d 938, 945-46 (Pa.Super.2000). Given that reality, I would simply overrule the preliminary objections regarding actual malice and would give the Tuckers the opportunity in discovery to uncover facts other than those *637 already available to establish the Appellant-newspapers’ reckless disregard for the truth.
Justice CASTILLE joins.