Curtis v. Evening News Ass'n

• Decision Date: 02 August 1984
• Docket Number: Docket No. 70854
• Citation: 135 Mich.App. 101,352 N.W.2d 355
• Parties: Bertha CURTIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, a Michigan corporation, Defendant-Appellant. 135 Mich.App. 101, 352 N.W.2d 355, 10 Media L. Rep. 1857
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 355

352 N.W.2d 355

Bertha CURTIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The EVENING NEWS ASSOCIATION, a Michigan corporation Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 70854.

135 Mich.App. 101, 352 N.W.2d 355, 10 Media L. Rep. 1857

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted April 4, 1984.

Decided June 4, 1984.

Released for Publication Aug. 2, 1984.

[135 MICHAPP 102] Bell & Hudson, P.C. by Lawrence J. Benton, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Butzel, Long, Gust, Klein & Van Zile, P.C. by Richard E. Rassel and James E. Stewart, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Before ALLEN, P.J., and V.J. BRENNAN and DANIELS ^*, JJ.

DANIELS, Judge.

In this action for libel, defendant appeals by leave granted from a circuit court order denying its motion for summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1). Such a motion for summary judgment tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint and should not be granted unless, accepting as true all well-pled facts in the complaint, the plaintiff's claims are so clearly unforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right to recover. See, for example, Karr v. Bd. Trustees of Michigan State University, 119 Mich.App. 1, 3-4, 325 N.W.2d 605 (1982).

Plaintiff's complaint cites an article published in defendant's newspaper, The Detroit News, concerning the shooting death of plaintiff's son, Wilson Curtis. The complaint alleges that the article contained false statements in implying that Wilson Curtis was a person of immoral, unchaste, violent, [135 MICHAPP 103] and criminal character and that these character traits led to his death. We note that defendant has admitted that the article contained false statements and has published a retraction. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that publication of the false statements in the article subjected her to ridicule and scorn and damaged her reputation.

In Postill v. Booth Newspapers, Inc., 118 Mich.App. 608, 618, 325 N.W.2d 511 (1982), the Court explained the essential elements of a cause of action like that at issue here:

"To demonstrate liability for defamation, the following elements must be proven: (a) a false and defamatory statement concerning plaintiff; (b) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm (defamation per se) or the existence of special harm caused by the publication (defamation per quod )." (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiff does not allege that the article contained any explicit or implicit reference to her. Instead, she relies on the damage to her reputation resulting from publication of false statements concerning her son. Because plaintiff failed to allege that defendant published a false and defamatory statement "concerning plaintiff", plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted, and the circuit court erred by denying defendant's motion for summary judgment.

This result is supported by decisions from other jurisdictions indicating that indirect damage to a plaintiff's reputation resulting from defamation of a deceased relative is insufficient to support an action for libel. McBeth v. United Press International, Inc., 505 F.2d 959, 960 (CA 5, 1974); Justice v. [135 MICHAPP 104] Belo Broadcasting Corp., 472 F.Supp. 145, 148 (N.D.Tex., 1979); Meeropol v. Nizer, 381 F.Supp. 29, 35 (S.D.N.Y., 1974); Lee v. Weston, 402 N.E.2d 23, 26-30 (Ind.App., 1980); Coulon v. Gaylord Broadcasting, 433 So.2d 429, 431-432 (La.App., 1983); Gonzales v. Times Herald Printing Co., 513 S.W.2d 124, 125-126 (Tex.Civ.App., 1974).

The cases on which plaintiff relies do not support her position. In Hughes v. The New England Newspaper Publishing Co., 312 Mass. 178, 179-180, 43 N.E.2d 657 (1942), the Court held:

"The general rule is that a libel upon the memory of a deceased person that does not directly cast any personal reflection upon his relative does not give them any right of action, although they may have thereby suffered mental anguish or sustained an impairment of their social standing among a considerable class of respectable people of the community in which they live by the disclosure that they were related to the deceased. * * * The false statement...