Carroll City/County Hospital Authority v. Cox Enterprises
| Decision Date | 22 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 34477,34477 |
| Citation | 243 Ga. 760,256 S.E.2d 443 |
| Parties | CARROLL CITY/COUNTY HOSPITAL AUTHORITY v. COX ENTERPRISES. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Tisinger, Tisinger & Vance, Thomas E. Greer, Carrollton, for appellant.
Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, Charles T. Zink, Albert G. Norman, Jr., John E. Zamer, Atlanta, Prince & Vassey, Douglas C. Vassey, Carrollton, for appellee.
W. Hale Barrett, David E. Hudson, Augusta, Sell, Comer & Popper, E. S. Sell, Jr., Richard B. Miller, Macon, amicus curiae.
We granted certiorari in this case to determine the proper venue of libel actions brought in the State of Georgia against corporate publishers. Under the Court of Appeals' decision, (Carroll City/County Hospital Authority v. Cox Enterprises, 147 Ga.App. 863, 250 S.E.2d 550 (1978)), venue in a libel action against a corporate publisher can be maintained only where the libelous publication is first exposed to public view. In so holding, the Court of Appeals stated that this result was demanded by Rives v. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc., 110 Ga.App. 184, 138 S.E.2d 100 (1964), rev'd on cert., 220 Ga. 485, 139 S.E.2d 395 (1964); conformed to on remand, 111 Ga.App. 6, 140 S.E.2d 304 (1965), in which the single publication rule was adopted as the law of the state.
Under English and American common law, every sale of a single copy of a newspaper was a distinct publication. As a result, a large number of separate suits could be instituted against a newspaper based upon any one defamatory story. Prosser on Torts, § 113 (4th Ed. 1971). Some form of a single publication rule has now been adopted in most American jurisdictions to avoid this situation.
The purpose of the single publication rule is to protect newspaper defendants and the courts from a multiplicity of suits and an almost endless tolling of the statute of limitations. Its goals can be accomplished by requiring a plaintiff to collect all of his damages in one action, and establish that the statute of limitations is to run from the date of initial publication. The rule is a device by which a widely circulated libel is litigated in one trial, a convenient fiction to simplify litigation and prevent a multiplicity of suits.
The single publication rule need not and should not, however, have any bearing on venue. While the rule may determine venue in the sense that there shall be only one trial, there is no logical basis for employing the single publication rule as a method of determining the site of the trial. See Note, The Single Publication Rule in Libel: A Fiction Misapplied, 62 Harv.L.Rev. 1041, 1046-1047 (1949); Note Uniform Single Publication Act, 44 Calif.L.Rev. 146, 151-152 (1956). The holding of this court in Rives v. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc., 220 Ga. 485, 139 S.E.2d 395 (1964), went no further than to judicially establish the single publication rule in Georgia. It did not establish the venue of such actions as being any different from the venue established by our Constitution and by statute for other torts. If a libel action is brought against a non- corporate newspaper, the venue would, by constitutional mandate, have to be brought in the county of residence of the libeler, which may not be the county where the newspaper is published. Code Ann. § 2-4306.
Code Ann. § 22-404(d) provides that corporations may be sued for damages because of torts in the county where the cause of action originated, if the corporation has an office and transacts business in that county. We construe this Code section to permit venue of a civil action for libel against a corporate publisher to be laid in any county in which the newspaper is circulated, provided the corporation has an office and transacts business in that county. In accord, Tingley v. Times-Mirror Co., 144 Cal. 205, 77 P. 918 (1904); Shores v. Chip Steak Co., 130 Cal.App.2d 627, 279 P.2d 595 (1955); Firstamerica Development Corp. v Daytona Beach News-Journal Corp., 196 So.2d 97 (Fla.1966); Dyer v. Davis, 189 So.2d 678 (La.App.1966); State v. District Ct., 129 Okl. 210, 264 P. 154 (1928).
Unlike those injured by other torts, a person libeled suffers possible injury in every county where the libel has been distributed. Therefore, a separate injury may originate in many different counties. Presumably, the person libeled suffers the greatest injury in his home community. In some cases, the person libeled will be harmed only in the county of his residence, the only place he is known. While the single publication rule permits only one suit to be filed against the tortfeasor newspaper for the entire issue of the story, it should not be applied to prevent a plaintiff from suing where the injury to his reputation may be the greatest. To restrict suit to the county in which the libel was first published would, in many cases, place an unfair burden on the plaintiff to sue for an injury which may not, in fact, exist at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Legare v. State, 34444
-
Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Coastal Transmission Service, Inc., 65684
...to avoid "a multiplicity of suits and an almost endless tolling of the statute of limitations ...." Carroll etc. Hosp. Auth. v. Cox Enterprises, 243 Ga. 760, 256 S.E.2d 443 (1979). In Carroll, the Georgia Supreme Court refused to apply the single publication rule to restrict venue to the co......
-
Torrance v. Morris Publishing Group LLC
...458 S.E.2d 701 (1995). 21. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV. 22. (Citations omitted.) Carroll City/County Hosp. Auth. v. Cox Enterprises., 243 Ga. 760, 761, 256 S.E.2d 443 (1979). 23. McLendon v. Albany Warehouse Co., 203 Ga. App. 865, 868(2), 418 S.E.2d 130 24. Id. at 866(1), ......
-
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 86-1963
...(E.D.N.Y.1967) ("A claim for libel or slander arises in the state where it is published.") and Carroll City/County Hospital Authority v. Cox Enterprises, 243 Ga. 760, 256 S.E.2d 443 (1979) (libel "cause of action originated" under Georgia venue statute in every county where newspaper circul......
-
Torts - Deron R. Hicks
...Enters. v. Gilreath, 142 Ga. App. 297, 298, 235 S.E.2d 633, 634 (1997)). 81. Id. (quoting Carroll City/County Hosp. Auth. v. Cox Enters., 243 Ga. 760, 760, 256 S.E.2d 443, 444 (1979)). 82. Id. at 379, 593 S.E.2d at 858 (citing Firth v. State of New York, 775 N.E.2d 463 (N.Y. 2002)). 83. Id.......