Decker v. Princeton Packet, Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 May 1988
• Citation: 224 N.J.Super. 726,541 A.2d 292
• Parties: , 15 Media L. Rep. 1775 Marcy G. DECKER, Individually; Marcy G. Decker, as Custodial Parent of Jackson T. Decker; and Charlotte Goldberg, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The PRINCETON PACKET, INC., A Delaware Corporation; John Doe, Whose Name is Fictitious; and ABC Corporation, Whose Identity is Unknown, Jointly, Individually or In The Alternative, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 726

224 N.J.Super. 726

541 A.2d 292, 15 Media L. Rep. 1775

Marcy G. DECKER, Individually; Marcy G. Decker, as Custodial Parent of Jackson T. Decker; and Charlotte Goldberg, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The PRINCETON PACKET, INC., A Delaware Corporation; John Doe, Whose Name is Fictitious; and ABC Corporation, Whose Identity is Unknown, Jointly, Individually or In The Alternative, Defendants-Respondents.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued April 26, 1988.

Decided May 10, 1988.

Stephen N. Allen, Princeton, for appellants (Robichaud and Associates, attorneys; Louise M. Robichaud, on the brief).

Gerard H. Hanson, Princeton, for respondent Princeton Packet, Inc. (Brener, Wallack & Hill, attorneys; Marilyn S. Silvia, on the brief).

Before Judges PRESSLER, BILDER and SKILLMAN.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BILDER, J.A.D.

On February 15, 1985 defendant newspaper, The Princeton Packet, mistakenly printed an obituary announcing the death of plaintiff Marcy Decker. ¹ It promptly printed a correction and apology. Plaintiff sued, alleging libel, negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress and gross negligence. On defendant's motion for summary judgment, the trial judge dismissed the complaint, holding that no action could lie. We agree.

While we appreciate the shock plaintiff may have felt in reading of her death, it was necessarily quickly dissipated by her certain knowledge the announcement was premature. That defendant made a mistake is patent but this is not sufficient to give rise to a claim for money damages. The announcement itself contained no defamatory material. Other than incorrectly stating that plaintiff had died suddenly, the obituary was accurate and not uncomplimentary.

Although plaintiff's claim may be a matter of first impression in this state, the issue is not novel. To the contrary, the general rule is well established that the mere publication of an improvident obituary is not defamatory in the absence of additional material of a defamatory nature published in connection therewith. See Prosser and Keaton, The Law of Torts, § 111 at 774 (5th Ed.1984); O'Neil v. Edmonds, 157 F.Supp. 649, 651 (E.D.Va.1958); cf. Estill v. Hearst Publishing Co., 186 F.2d 1017 (7th Cir.1951) where the death announcement was accompanied by reports of surrounding circumstances of a defamatory nature. Although we have not heretofore specifically spoken to the narrow question of whether a premature obituary is per se libelous, we have clearly embraced the rule that the question of whether published material is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning is a question of law for the court...