Pendleton v. Newsome
| Decision Date | 04 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 141116. |
| Citation | 772 S.E.2d 759,290 Va. 162 |
| Parties | Laura Mary–Beth PENDLETON v. Marcus J. NEWSOME, et al. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Mark J. Krudys, Richmond (Krudys Law Firm, on briefs), for appellant.
Julie A.C. Seyfarth, Assistant County Attorney, (Jeffrey L. Mincks, County Attorney, Stylian P. Parthemos, Deputy County Attorney, on brief), for appellees Marcus J. Newsome, Shawn Smith, Tim Bullis, Ed Witthoefft, and Patricia Carpenter
John D. Gilbody, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Rhodes B. Ritenour, Deputy Attorney General, on brief), for appellee Jody Enoch.
Present: LEMONS, C.J., GOODWYN, MILLETTE and KELSEY, JJ., and RUSSELL and KOONTZ, S.JJ.
This appeal arises out of an action to recover damages for defamation in which the circuit court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend. The dispositive question is whether the complaint sets forth facts that, if taken as true, are sufficient to support a cause of action for defamation. We therefore focus on the allegations contained in the complaint.1
On January 2, 2012, Amarria Denise Johnson was a seven-year-old first grade student at Hopkins Elementary School in Chesterfield County. Amarria died at the school that day as a result of a severe allergic reaction
to a peanut provided to her by a classmate.
Amarria's mother, Laura Mary–Beth Pendleton (the plaintiff) brought this action in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond against six defendants: Marcus J. Newsome, who was Superintendent of the Chesterfield County Public Schools (CCPS), Shawn Smith, who was Assistant Director of Community Relations for CCPS, Jody Enoch, who was a Public Health Nurse Supervisor for the Chesterfield County Health Department (CCHD), Tim Bullis, Director of Community Relations for CCPS, Ed Witthoefft, who was Assistant Superintendent of CCPS, and Patricia M. Carpenter, who was Chair of the Chesterfield County School Board (collectively, the defendants).
The plaintiff was a licensed practical nurse. She had informed the school staff earlier in the school year that Amarria was severely allergic to certain food products, including peanuts. The plaintiff had also, the prior year, filled out a confidential school “Standard Health/Emergency Plan” signed by Amarria's pediatrician. The plan directed that Amarria receive Benadryl
and an auto-injection of Epinephrine if she should ingest or have skin contact with certain allergens, including nuts. As required by school regulations, the plaintiff also brought to the school an “EpiPen Jr.” for the injection of Epinephrine for the school's use in such an emergency. The school's clinic assistant, however, told the plaintiff to retain it for use at home. The plaintiff understood that the school maintained allergy medications for emergency use.2
On January 2, 2012, Amarria reported “bumps” and “scratching” in her neck shortly after ingesting the peanut but was not given either Benadryl
or Epinephrine. She died soon thereafter.
The tragic death of the child received prompt and widespread publicity in news reports published by local, national, and international media. These reports contained many statements and comments made by the defendants.
The gravamen of the plaintiff's claim is that those statements were maliciously designed to divert public indignation from the failures of CCPS and CCHD personnel to exercise proper care for the child by falsely implying and insinuating that the plaintiff had failed to inform the school authorities of the child's serious allergy, failed to furnish a doctor-approved emergency medical plan, and failed to furnish the school clinic with the required medications for use in such an emergency. The plaintiff contends that the defendants' statements were designed to convey the innuendo that she bore responsibility for the death of her child. The complaint asserts:
In the days following Amarria's death, when Ms. Pendleton was seeking answers to, and grieving from, the loss of her daughter, the Defendants undertook a public-relations smear campaign to deflect away from school and health officials, and onto Ms. Pendleton, responsibility for Amarria's death. The Defendants falsely implied, inferred, and/or insinuated, through direct statements, omissions of relevant facts, and use of innuendo, that Amarria's death was caused by Ms. Pendleton's alleged inactions—specifically, failing to provide necessary information and medications to Amarria's school. In truth, as noted above, Ms. Pendleton had completed necessary paperwork and had provided Amarria's EpiPen Jr. to the Hopkins clinic assistant. Defendants' false statements—made by inference, implication, and/or insinuation—caused Ms. Pendleton to be pilloried by the public. Ms. Pendleton did attempt to explain her actual actions to the public. Her single voice, however, was not heard above the chorus of false statements spread by the Defendants, whose falsities were bolstered by the Defendants' employment positions, and were repeated over and over in the media. Persuaded by the Defendants' characterization of events, countless individuals, including the parents of other Chesterfield County Public Schools (“CCPS”) students, concluded and declared that Ms. Pendleton was a bad mother—the most hurtful and disparaging of labels.
In a public letter dated January 4, 2012 which was posted to CCPS's website on January 5, 2012, defendant Newsome stated:
Student and staff safety is a top priority.... Earlier this week, a first-grade student at Hopkins Elementary School died. Chesterfield County Public Schools is deeply saddened by the loss of this child and has reached out to her family.... Key ... is a parent's responsibility to provide the school with accurate, timely information; a health emergency plan ... and the medicine necessary to execute the plan.... If any one of these items is missing, the doctor's orders cannot be carried out. The school ... relies on parents to follow through.
In two emails dated January 4, 2012 responding to producers of major news organizations, Defendant Smith reiterated the CCPS statements, including “[e]xecution of the plan is dependent on the parent's ability to inform the school of needs and to provide the appropriate resources ” and privacy protection “hampers our efforts to correct misinformation.”
In a news article dated January 5, 2012 entitled “Grieving mom: School knew about peanut allergy,” Smith was quoted as stating:
Parents/guardians of a student with a severe allergy are key to the process of keeping their child safe at school. They are at the center of developing a plan that works for their child. Execution of the plan is dependent on the parent's ability to inform the school of needs and to provide the appropriate resources. When any or all of the resources are not provided, the public health nurse makes contact(s) with the family in an effort to obtain the necessary medication.
In an article dated January 5, 2012 entitled “Death of Allergic Student Raises Questions about School's Responsibility,” Smith was quoted as stating:
For any medication, the school would have to be in possession of [it] to provide it
.... At the beginning of the school year, we sent information to parents outlining the different responsibilities for the family and the child.... First and foremost, it does begin at home. Working with their doctor, the family would outline a health care plan ....
In two articles dated January 5, 2012 entitled “Pupil, 7, who ‘loved school’ dies after suffering allergic reaction
to peanuts during recess break” and “Family: Child dies in school from peanut allergic reaction,” Smith was further quoted as stating “[a]t the beginning of the school year, we sent home a packet to the family, the understanding that there are certain students that have severe allergies.”
An article dated January 6, 2012 entitled “Allergy kills Virginia girl at school,” states that Smith gave a written statement stating “[w]hen any or all of the resources are not provided, the public health nurse makes contact with the family in an effort to obtain the necessary medication.”
In two articles dated January 5, 2012 defendant Enoch was quoted as stating ”
In official email responses dated January 5, 2012 to concerned parents, defendant Witthoefft stated certain laws “can hamper our efforts to correct misinformation that is provided to and reported by local media outlets.” He further stated:
Key to the plan is a parent's ability to provide the school with accurate, timely information; a health plan ... and access to the medical resources necessary.... When the resources are not available, execution of the plan cannot be continued. Our school division welcomes medication ... [EpiPens] are not prohibited.... Again, execution of the plan is dependent on the parent's ability to inform the school of needs and to provide the appropriate resources. When any or all of the resources are not provided, the public health nurse makes contact(s) with the family in an effort to obtain the necessary medication .... [I]f one piece of the puzzle is missing, the doctor's orders cannot be carried out.
In an email response dated January 7, 2012 to a concerned parent, defendant Carpenter used the words “misinformation,” “rumors,” and “inaccurate information.” She said she appreciated the “opportunity to provide [her] with as many facts” as she could “at this time” and stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Handberg v. Goldberg
...on the alleged defamatory statements set forth in the complaint, as occurred in the present case. See, e.g. , Pendleton v. Newsome , 290 Va. 162, 173, 772 S.E.2d 759 (2015) ; Schaecher , 290 Va. at 89-91, 772 S.E.2d 589 ; Webb , 287 Va. at 89-90, 752 S.E.2d 808.2 Additionally, for a stateme......
-
Eramo v. Rolling Stone, LLC, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-00023
...considers the plain and natural meaning of the words in addition to the inferences fairly attributable to them. Pendleton v. Newsome , 290 Va. 162, 172, 772 S.E.2d 759 (2015) (citing Wells v. Liddy , 186 F.3d 505, 523 (4th Cir.1999) ); Vaile v. Willick , No.6:07cv00011, 2008 WL 2754975, at ......
-
Gilmore v. Jones
...of the attack and as part of an effort to use the rally to undermine President Trump and the "alt-right." Pendleton v. Newsome , 772 S.E.2d 759, 765 (Va. 2015). Creighton's statements about Gilmore are not reasonably characterized as mere expressions of opinion. Pure expressions of opinion ......
-
Edwards v. Schwartz, Case No. 7:18-cv-378
...at 137 (1998). Virginia law also recognizes defamation per quod, i.e., defamation by implication. See, e.g., Pendleton v. Newsome, 290 Va. 162, 172, 772 S.E.2d 759, 763 (2015) ("In Webb, we reiterated that Virginia law recognizes a claim for defamation by inference, implication or insinuati......