Anderson v. WBNS-TV, Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 December 2019
• Docket Number: No. 2018-0792,2018-0792
• Citation: 158 Ohio St.3d 307,141 N.E.3d 192,2019 Ohio 5196
• Parties: ANDERSON et al., Appellees, v. WBNS-TV, INC., Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

158 Ohio St.3d 307

141 N.E.3d 192

2019 Ohio 5196

ANDERSON et al., Appellees,

v.WBNS-TV, INC., Appellant.

No. 2018-0792

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 24, 2019

Decided December 18, 2019.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Donnelly, J. {¶ 1} The Columbus Police Department sent an information sheet to appellant, WBNS-TV, Inc. ("WBNS"), among other media outlets, on January 20, 2016. The information sheet described the robbery of a hoverboard from an eight-year-old child that took place in the parking lot of a waterpark on November 26, 2015, and stated that "suspects * * * put a gun to the eight-year-old's head and demanded the hoverboard." The information sheet also asked for help identifying the people in an accompanying photograph "who may have been involved" in the robbery. That photograph depicted siblings Aaron, Aaronana, and Arron Anderson, and it had been taken by a surveillance camera as they entered the waterpark.

{¶ 2} WBNS used the information sheet to prepare a segment that aired during the 5:00 a.m. broadcast on January 21, 2016. During the segment, WBNS employees showed the picture of Aaron, Aaronana, and Arron, while stating: a "girl was riding her hoverboard when robbers went up to her, put a gun to her head and took it. Columbus Police say suspects—seen here—took off in a PT cruiser." During the 6:00 a.m. broadcast that same day, while showing the same picture, WBNS employees stated, "Columbus Police hope you recognize these two men who robbed an 8-year-old girl at gunpoint!" On the WBNS website, www.10tv.com, the picture of Aaron, Aaronana, and Arron was published with the accompanying text, "The suspects put a gun to the 8-year-old girl's head * * *."

{¶ 3} When Nanita Williams (the mother of Aaron, Aaronana, and Arron) saw the early morning broadcast on January 21, 2016, she began screaming and crying, which woke her family. Williams and her children went to the police station, and after approximately four hours of questioning, the police determined that Aaron, Aaronana, and Arron had not been involved in the crime. Shortly thereafter, the Columbus Police Department released a statement that the people in the photograph had spoken to detectives and after further investigation, the police had determined that they had not been involved in the robbery. Upon receiving this statement, WBNS employees removed the picture from its website. WBNS employees did not subsequently refer to the picture of Aaron, Aaronana, and Arron.

{¶ 4} Appellees, Aaron, Aaronana, Willie Anderson, and Williams (collectively, "the Andersons"),¹ filed a complaint against WBNS asserting, among other claims, a claim for defamation. WBNS moved for and was granted summary judgment on all counts. The trial court held that the Andersons could not prove an essential element, fault, of their defamation claim, see Jackson v. Columbus , 117 Ohio St.3d 328, 2008-Ohio-1041, 883 N.E.2d 1060, ¶ 9 (setting forth the elements of a defamation claim).

{¶ 5} The Andersons appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred in granting WBNS summary judgment on the defamation claim. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment on that claim, stating, "There is no question that WBNS defamed some of the Andersons." 2018-Ohio-761, 2018 WL 1129670, ¶ 8. The court framed the issue before it as whether "broadcasting an accusation that the Andersons were robbers without investigation by WBNS and based on a set of police documents which claimed only that some of the Andersons were suspects is sufficient proof of a violation of a duty of care to allow the lawsuit to survive a motion for summary judgment." Id. at ¶ 11. The court concluded that the lawsuit should survive summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed, and it remanded the cause to the trial court. Id. at ¶ 11, 16 ; see Civ.R. 56(C) (setting forth the summary-judgment standard).

{¶ 6} We accepted WBNS's discretionary appeal. 153 Ohio St.3d 1461, 2018-Ohio-3258, 104 N.E.3d 791.

ANALYSIS

{¶ 7} Attempting to attain the proper balance between protecting the freedom of speech guaranteed by the United States and Ohio Constitutions and protecting citizens from injury to their reputations is fraught with difficulty. This court and the Supreme Court of the United States have grappled with the issue for years.

See, e.g. , Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. , 32 Ohio St.3d 176, 512 N.E.2d 979 (1987) (plurality opinion); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc ., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974).

{¶ 8} In Ohio, in a case involving a private person who was allegedly defamed in a statement about a matter of public concern, the plaintiff "has the burden of proving both that the statement was false and [that] the defendant was at least negligent in publishing it." Dale v. Ohio Civil Serv. Emps. Assn., 57 Ohio St.3d 112, 114, 567 N.E.2d 253 (1991), citing Lansdowne . Moreover, the negligence must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Lansdowne at 180, 512 N.E.2d 979 ( Lansdowne was not a majority opinion; a year after it was decided, a majority of the court acknowledged that the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard set forth in Lansdowne was the appropriate standard of proof, Oney v. Allen, 39 Ohio St.3d 103, 106, 529 N.E.2d 471 (1988), fn. 2 ).

{¶ 9} A defamation claim against a news organization requires proof that (1) the organization made a false statement, (2) the statement was defamatory, (3) the organization published the statement, (4) the plaintiff was harmed as a proximate result of the publication, and (5) the organization acted with the requisite degree of fault in publishing the statement. Am. Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, Inc ., 133 Ohio St.3d 366, 2012-Ohio-4193, 978 N.E.2d 832, ¶ 77. For purposes of its motion for summary judgment, WBNS assumed that the Andersons could satisfy all the elements of a defamation claim with the exception of the fault element. That is, WBNS argued in its motion for summary judgment only that the Andersons could not prove that WBNS acted with the requisite degree of fault in publishing the statements.

{¶ 10} It follows that in its opinion granting summary judgment to WBNS, the trial court focused its analysis on the fault element. In considering WBNS's argument that the Andersons could not prove that WBNS impermissibly altered the information that the police had supplied, the trial court summarized the facts and said that "[w]ithin this complete context, the Court cannot conclude that a reasonable reader or viewer would interpret the stories as defamatory." But shortly before that statement, the trial court said that its "analysis [was] limited to the fault prong in this case." The trial court's statement regarding WBNS's allegedly defamatory statements was, at best, dictum, which is not binding on this or any other court, see State ex rel. Gordon v. Barthalow , 150 Ohio St. 499, 505-506, 83 N.E.2d 393 (1948).

{¶ 11} On appeal, both parties focused their arguments on the trial court's fault-element determination. Before the court of appeals purported to apply the fault standard that this court announced in Lansdowne , 32 Ohio St.3d 176, 512 N.E.2d 979, it said:

There is no question that WBNS defamed some of the Andersons. It accused members of the family of being armed robbers. * * * [M]erely publishing a false, defamatory statement is sufficient to establish a traditional defamation claim. Common law malice is established by the mere publication of false, defamatory material. The fact that WBNS failed to distribute a retraction supports the common law presumption of malice applicable in such situations.

2018-Ohio-761 at ¶ 8. Because WBNS focused its summary-judgment argument on the fault element, the trial court confined its decision to that element, and the parties confined their arguments on appeal to the fault element. The defamatory-statement element of the defamation claim (i.e., whether the publications were defamatory) was not before the court of appeals, and that court's expression regarding WBNS's alleged defamation of Aaron, Aaronana, and Arron Anderson was not essential to its fault-element determination. The court's statement regarding WBNS's allegedly defamatory publications was dictum and, therefore, is not the law of the case.

{¶ 12} This appeal stems from WBNS's motion for summary judgment based on only the fault element of the Andersons' defamation claim and the court of appeals' review of that decision. The question before the court of appeals was whether the trial court erred in holding that the Andersons could not prove the fault element of their defamation claim. The issue whether the publications were defamatory was not before the court.

{¶ 13} Although the court of appeals correctly stated the appropriate standard as set forth in Lansdowne , it ultimately applied a different standard. Actually, the court erred in two ways. It stated that "merely publishing a false, defamatory statement is sufficient to establish a traditional defamation claim," 2018-Ohio-761 at ¶ 8. This statement is plainly contrary to Lansdowne , which requires a showing of negligence. The court of appeals also erroneously stated that "a media outlet has a stronger duty to research the facts in such cases than it did when the Lansdowne case was decided." Id. at ¶ 11. The court did not cite any authority for this new standard or explain what constitutes compliance with the "stronger duty."

{¶ 14} We agree with WBNS that the standard set forth in Lansdowne, 32 Ohio St.3d 176, 512 N.E.2d 979, is the appropriate standard to apply in this case. We also agree that Lansdowne requires the Andersons to present clear and convincing evidence that WBNS acted negligently in publishing defamatory statements about Aaron, Aaronana, and Arron. And we agree that although the court of appeals correctly set forth the Lansdowne standard, it did not apply it. Thus, we vacate the court of appeals' judgment and remand the cause to the court of appeals for it to...