Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp., MID-FLORIDA

Decision Date20 April 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82-701,MID-FLORIDA,82-701
Citation431 So.2d 627
PartiesJack BOYLES, Appellant, v.TELEVISION CORP., et al., and Pat Beall, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Marcia K. Lippincott, P.A., and Elizabeth J. Gulden of Gulden, Heller & Sheaffer, Orlando, for appellant.

William G. Osborne of Robertson, Williams, Duane, Lewis & Ranson, P.A., and Richard Wilson, Orlando, for appellees.

COBB, Judge.

The appellant, Jack Boyles, brought a multiple-count action against the defendants below, Mid-Florida Television Corporation, et al. (Channel 9), and a television news reporter, Pat Beall. These various counts were either dismissed by preliminary motion or adversely adjudicated against the plaintiff by summary motion, and Boyles appeals.

The facts leading up to this appeal began in July, 1979, at which time a mentally retarded child, Curtis Duncan, died from head injuries while temporarily residing in a group home licensed by The Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services (H.R.S.) and operated by one Mildred Coffey, the mother of Jack Boyles. Boyles lived in the home and occasionally assisted in its operation, while at the same time working as an assistant at the Sunland facility for retarded patients. Boyles was not present at his mother's home when Curtis was injured.

As a result of the death, H.R.S. removed other children from Mrs. Coffey's home. Two H.R.S. workers, Joyce Ivancevich and Ira Ehrlich, were appointed to look into the death of Curtis Duncan and the licensing of the Coffey group home. As part of their inquiry, they prepared a document entitled "Social Summary on Mildred Coffey Family." A portion of that summary read:

Additional information of note is that the inquiry team went to Sunland to interview Jack Boyles, son of Mrs. Mildred Coffey, but were advised by him that he was advised by Mrs. Coffey's attorneys not to speak with us. The team reviewed his personnel file and spoke with individuals who supervised him. We were advised by Mrs. Pat Gleason, former supervisor, that Mr. Boyles had been charged by a client in Sunland of having sexually molested her but that she did not believe that allegation was valid. In addition, she stated that the one thing she could say about him that was negative was the fact that he used to tease the clients a great deal. She used an example that he teased one client to the point that she On October 26, 1980, Channel 9 televised a report prepared by its news reporter, Pat Beall, purportedly an "update" on the death of Curtis Duncan. This telecast, based upon the HRS summary, showed a photograph of Boyles accompanied by a statement that he "had been repeatedly reprimanded while at Sunland for taunting the retarded patients in his care." On January 2, 1981, Channel 9 televised a second report prepared by Pat Beall. Again, a photograph of Boyles was shown, accompanied by the following statement:

would become angry and begin banging her plate on the table at which point he would laugh and get a big kick out of it. He had to be cautioned about this on more than one occasion.

[N]ow, questions about the foster group home have surfaced again. This time in connection with a worker in the home, Coffey's son ... it was here at Sunland that he was accused of raping one of the retarded patients. But HRS was forced to drop the charges. The patient was not verbal. An internal HRS memo into Curtis Duncan's death notes that Coffey's son had been reprimanded on a number of occasions for taunting the Sunland's clients while they ate. Mildred Coffey maintains that it was a feeding incident that caused the fatal blow to Curtis Duncan's head ... but the State Attorneys' office was given three different explanations of who was feeding Curtis Duncan at that time. One of which involved Coffey's son.

On February 13, 1981, Boyles's attorney complied with the provisions of section 770.01, Florida Statutes (1979), by writing a letter to the station manager of Channel 9 demanding a retraction. Instead of a retraction, Channel 9 published a third broadcast on February 23, 1981, as follows:

Mrs. Coffey's son, JACK BOYLES, has taken issue with statements made about him, including allegations that he assaulted a Sunland client and that he taunted Sunland Clients. Now, to clarify this matter, we now quote from an internal HRS memo (quoting) the inquiry team went to Sunland to interview Jack Boyles, son of Mildred Coffey, but were advised by him that he was advised by Mrs. Coffey's attorney not to speak with us. The team reviewed his personnel file and spoke with individuals who supervised him. We were advised by Mrs. Pat Gleason, former supervisor, that Mr. Boyles had been charged by a client in Sunland of having sexually molested her but that she did not believe that allegation was valid. In addition, she stated that the one thing she could say about him that was negative was the fact that he used to tease the clients a great deal. She used an example ... that he would tease one client to the point that she would become angry and then began banging her plate on the table, at which point he would laugh and get a big kick out of it ... he had to be cautioned about this on more than one occasion (unquote).

On March 2, 1982, Boyles brought suit against Pat Beall and the corporate owners of the television station. The ultimate complaint, with which we are now concerned, consisted of four counts: Count I was framed as a libel and slander action; Count II charged intentional infliction of mental distress; Count III asserted invasion of privacy; and Count IV, incorporating the prior allegations, sought punitive damages. The HRS "Social Summary" was attached as an exhibit to the complaint.

The trial court dismissed with prejudice Counts I and II--and Count IV as it related to them. Subsequently, final summary judgment was entered on Count III and the remainder of Count IV. This appeal ensued.

LIBEL

The material allegations of Count I (libel) are incorporated in paragraphs six through twelve of the complaint, as follows:

6. That on or about October 26, 1980, "CHANNEL 9", broadcasted to the public a report prepared by the Defendant, PAT BEALL, which purported to be an "update" on a previous story concerning Mrs. Mildred Coffey, mother of the Plaintiff, JACK BOYLES. A child, Curtis Duncan, had died while under Mrs. Coffey's care in her home for mentally retarded children. The broadcast of October 26, 1980, showed a photograph of the Plaintiff "that her son, a worker at Sunland, had been repeatedly reprimanded while at Sunland for taunting the retarded patients in his care."

JACK BOYLES, and while the photograph was on the screen, the following statement was made concerning the Plaintiff:

7. That the above allegation is false and defamatory per se, in that it alleges conduct incompatible with the exercise of the Plaintiff's profession as a Resident Life Assistant at the Sunland facility for retarded patients. The Plaintiff's occupation involves the care of many retarded patients. "CHANNEL 9", knew or should have known that the above statement was false and defamatory.

8. That on or about January 2, 1981, the Defendant, PAT BEALL, prepared a second report which was broadcasted by the Defendant "CHANNEL 9" on the same day. The broadcast of January 2, 1981, showed a photograph of the Plaintiff on the screen while the following statements were made:

"now, questions about the foster group have surfaced again. This time in connection with a worker in the home, Coffey's son .... it was here at Sunland that he was accused of raping one of the retarded patients. But HRS was forced to drop the charges. The patient was not verbal. An internal HRS memo into Curtis Duncan's death notes that Coffey's son had been reprimanded on a number of occasions for taunting the Sunland's clients while they ate. Mildred Coffey maintains that it was a feeding incident that caused the fatal blow to Curtis Duncan's head .. but the State Attorneys' Office was given three different explanations of who was feeding Curtis Duncan at that time. One of which involved Coffey's son."

9. That the above allegations are false and defamatory for the following specific reasons:

(a) The words quoted above imply that the Plaintiff was a suspect in the death of Curtis Duncan.

(b) The words imply that the Plaintiff was a habitual tormentor of retarded patients.

(c) The words imply that the Plaintiff raped a patient in his care at Sunland and escaped punishment therefor, because the patient was unable to communicate.

(d) The words imply that the incident involving the rape accusation was recent in origin and had prompted the news report of January 2, 1981.

10. That all of the above allegations are false. The Defendant, PAT BEALL, knew or should have known of the falsity of the allegations when the report was prepared for broadcast. Further, there was no good motive by the Defendant for the publication of the broadcast of January 2, 1981.

11. That the above allegations constitute libel per se, and slander per se, in that they accuse the Plaintiff of conduct incompatible with the exercise of his profession as a Resident Life Assistant at Sunland, and they accuse him of acts of moral turpitude; specifically, taking sexual advantage of patients in his care who are unable to resist or defend themselves.

12. That as a result of the above described defamation the Plaintiff, JACK BOYLES, has suffered mental pain and anguish, damage to his reputation, humiliation and depression, and an impairment of his ability to seek employment in his field at an institution other than the one at which he is currently employed.

The ruling of the trial court in dismissing Count I apparently was prompted by a two-fold argument of the defense: (1) the tort of libel per se no longer exists in regard to defamation actions against the media as a result of the United States Supreme Court decision in Gertz...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • Green v. Cosby
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • October 9, 2015
    ...negligently. See Brown v. Kelly Broad. Co. , 48 Cal.3d 711, 257 Cal.Rptr. 708, 771 P.2d 406, 425 (1989) ; Boyles v. Mid – Florida TV Corp. , 431 So.2d 627, 634 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983), aff'd 467 So.2d 282, 283 (Fla.1985). Negligence exists if the statement is made without first exercising re......
  • Fridovich v. Fridovich
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1992
    ...of emotional distress simply by characterizing the alleged defamatory statements as "outrageous." See Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp., 431 So.2d 627, 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), approved on other grounds, 467 So.2d 282 We thus find that the successful invocation of a defamation privileg......
  • Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • October 23, 2008
    ...district courts in this state have recognized the tort as a valid variation of defamation. See, e.g., Boyles v. Mid-Fla. Television Corp., 431 So.2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (reversing dismissal of libel per se claim based on statements that implied that plaintiff was a suspect in the death ......
  • Scott v. Busch
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 29, 2005
    ...Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 91 S.Ct. 621, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971); Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803, 807 (Fla.1985); Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp., 431 So.2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Ane, 423 So.2d 376, 383-384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hood v. Connors, 419 So.2d 742,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Defamation & privacy
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Causes of Action
    • April 1, 2022
    ...of false and defamatory statements without reasonable care to determine their falsity. Source Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp., 431 So.2d 627, 634 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), affirmed , 467 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1985). See Also 1. Scholz v. RDV Sports, Inc. , 710 So.2d 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), rev......
  • Business litigation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Small-Firm Practice Tools - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 1, 2023
    ...by themselves are not injurious on their face and require extrinsic facts, i.e. , innuendo. [ Boyles v. Mid-Florida Television Corp ., 431 So. 2d 627, 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).] By contrast, defamation per se presumes that the statement caused harm because of the words used. As a result, dam......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT