Francis v. Lake Charles Am. Press
| Decision Date | 17 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 51076,51076 |
| Citation | 265 So.2d 206,262 La. 875 |
| Parties | Earnest FRANCIS v. LAKE CHARLES AMERICAN PRESS. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Drewett & Jacques, J. Clem Drewett, Lake Charles, Louis R. Koerner, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiff-applicant.
Jones, Kimball, Patin, Harper, Tete & Wetherill, William M. Nolen, Lake Charles, for defendant-respondent.
In the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction we directed Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, for review of its judgment which amended the judgment of the trial court (this judgment was in accordance with the jury verdict) in favor of Earnest Francis from $15,000.00, defamation damages, to $1,500.00. Art. VII, Sec. 11, La.Const. of 1921; La.App., 241 So.2d 73; 257 La. 602, 243 So.2d 272.
The facts of record disclose that at the instance of his wife, who had been prevailed upon by Mrs. Gervey Joseph LaRue, Earnest Francis signed, September, 1969, a surety appearance bond in the sum of $100.00 for Gervey Joseph LaRue, who was charged under a Lake Charles City Ordinance with being a peeping tom--a misdemeanor.
LaRue did not appear for trial, and the following judgment was rendered by the Lake Charles City Court, Parish of Calcasieu, Ward III, on September 23, 1969 (read and signed on September 25, 1969):
WARD III
STATE OF LOUISIANA
In the above-entitled and numbered cause, the defendant was charged by an affidavit with Peeping Tom in violation of Chapter $ $, Paragraph $ $ of the Code of the City of Lake Charles, 1956.
The said defendant, having been duly notified to appear in Open Court on the 23rd day of Sept., 1969, for the purpose of arraignment and/or trial, and/or fixing for trial, did fail to appear and answer when called, whereupon the City Prosecutor of the Lake Charles City Court moved that the Court forthwith render up judgment decreeing the forfeiture of the $100.00 surety appearance bond deposited with the Marshall of the City of Lake Charles by Earnest Francis--209 N. Spencer Street.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the surety appearance bond of $100.00 deposited with the Marshal of the City of Lake Charles by the said Earnest Francis, be, and the same is hereby forfeited, and accordingly there be judgment herein and the same is rendered in favor of the City of Lake Charles and against the said Gervey Joseph LaRue, defendant, and Earnest Francis, surety, jointly and in solido, together with 5% Per annum interest thereon from and after the date hereof, and for all costs of these proceedings.'
Joseph B. Goodwin, a court reporter for the Lake Charles American Press in 1969, covered the proceedings of both the Lake Charles City Court and the Fourteenth Judicial District Court. On September 23rd or 24th, 1969, after covering a narcotics trial in the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Goodwin went to the City Court where he picked up the record of the above forfeiture. He testified:
On September 25, 1969, the following news story appeared on page 8 of the Lake Charles American Press:
'Peeping tom bond forfeited
A $100 cash bond forfeiture has been ordered and a bench warrant issued for Earnest Francis, 290 Spencer St., who failed to appear in City Court for arraignment on a 'peeping tom' charge.
City Judge Murray Anderson took the action at the request of Assistant City Prosecutor Ben Short.'
Francis, an operator for Cities Service Oil Company and an agent for Williams Life Industrial Insurance Company (this work he performed at night and on weekends), was depressed by the untrue story. He said, 'I couldn't have been hurt worser than if I was shot with a shotgun.' He did not contact the newspaper, and his wife, who worked, was unsuccessful in her attempt to contact the proper newspaper parties the day the story appeared. On September 27, 1969, Francis spoke with his attorney, and on October 2, 1969, J. Clem Drewett of the firm of Drewett, Jacques & Short addressed the following letter to the Lake Charles American Press:
'Gentlemen:
This is to inform you that I represent Ernest Francis relative to a newspaper article that was written about him on September 25, 1969. It was reported in your paper that a warrant was issued for Ernest Francis who failed to appear in City Court for arraignment on a 'peeping tom' charge. It appears that you have been in grave error about this through negligence of some of your personnel as Ernest Francis has never been charged on a 'peeping tom' charge. Ernest Francis did sign a bond for a man who was charged regarding such a matter and apparently your reporter did not research the matter adequately.
My client, Ernest Francis, works for Cities Service, as well as selling life insurance and he has been thoroughly embarrassed and humiliated by the said newspaper article. Also his family, including his nine children who are in school, as well as his wife, has been humiliated and made fun of by the public in general and it is apparent that Mr. Francis is going to have a substantial loss of income in the future as a result of your newspaper article.
Our investigation indicates that this is a clear case of negligence on the part of your newspaper and that your paper should first make a front page retraction of the article as well as having either you or your insurance company enter into negotiations for a money settlement on this matter.
I am enclosing a copy of this letter for you to forward to your insurance company and would suggest that you have someone get in touch with this office immediately for further discussion of the matter.
DREWETT, JACQUES & SHORT
(Sgd) J. Clem Drewett
J. CLEM DREWETT
JCD/sg
Enclosure'
On Saturday, October 4, 1969, after receipt of the letter, supra, the Lake Charles American Press, page 3, published the following retraction:
"Peeping tom' story in error
The American Press erred Sept. 25 when it said a $100 bond forfeiture had been ordered and a bench warrant issued for Earnest Francis, 290 Spencer St., for a failure to appear in City Court on a 'peeping tom' charge.
Francis was not the defendant, but had signed an appearance bond for Gervey Joseph LaRue, no age or address available, who was charged on that count.
City Prosecutor Robert Jacques' office dropped the peeping tom charges against LaRue Sept. 30 and ordered the bench warrant recalled and the bond forfeiture set aside.'
On October 21, 1969, plaintiff filed the present suit for damages in the sum of $125,000.00, alleging in part:
'6.
The aforedescribed article was printed and subsequently sold in complete error and without justification, through the negligence of LAKE CHARLES AMERICAN PRESS, INC., its agents, servants and/or employees for the following reasons, not to be exclusive:
A. Failing to make an adequate, thorough investigation before printing a news article;
B. Failing to ascertain that certain facts are true before printing same;
C. Failing to make a proper investigation before printing a news article to see if there is any basis for said news article;
D. Failing to check a news story to find out whether or not it was true before printing the same;
E. Printing and selling a newspaper which contained a false news article without checking the correctness of the same when proper and adequate investigation would have revealed the incorrectness of the said article;
F. Failing, in general, to adhere to the average principle regarding the publishing, printing and selling of a newspaper that is generally accepted in the newspaper business.
10.
Since the printing of the aforedescribed news article on September 25, 1969, petitioner and his family have been harassed, embarrassed, and shunned by the public and their friends, has received anonymous telephone calls concerning the article, has felt lower self-esteem and (as) well as lower esteem from his friends, acquaintances and business associates in the community.
11.
Since the aforesaid printing of the news article on September 25, 1969, petitioner has been asked to resign from his job with Williams Industrial Life Insurance Company.'
Defendant answered plaintiff's petition, averring that 'the error in the news article in question was made inadvertently and innocently and not through any intentional or culpably negligent conduct on the part of defendant or anyone for whom it might be responsible.' Defendant further averred that upon learning of the error in the news article, it promptly published an article correcting the same, which article was printed in a place of equal or greater prominence than the original article.
The matter was tried to a jury which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mashburn v. Collin
...See, Robertson, supra, pp. 201-212.17 403 U.S. 29, 91 S.Ct. 1811, 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971).18 Id. at 43. See, Francis v. Lake Charles American Press, 262 La. 875, 265 So.2d 206 (1972) in which this Court applied the Rosenbloom standard.19 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974).20 J......
-
Han Ye Lee v. Colorado Times, Inc.
...by merely publishing a retraction. 241 So.2d 73, 76 (La.Ct.App.1971) (citing Tresca v. Maddox, 11 La. Ann. 206 (1856)), aff'd, 262 La. 875, 265 So.2d 206 (1972); see also Perret, 25 La. Ann. 170 (a retraction cannot exonerate a defendant entirely because the injury caused by one publication......
-
Gulotta v. Cutshaw
...instance the writ issued where the opposing party has failed to make application seeking such an amendment. Francis v. Lake Charles American Press, 262 La. 875, 265 So.2d 206 (1972); Pennington v. Justiss-Mears Oil Co., 242 La. 1, 134 So.2d 53 (1961); Foley v. National Life and Accident Ins......
-
McCalmont v. McCalmont
...peremptory exception of no cause of action may be filed in the appellate court. La.Code Civ.P. art. 2163 ; Francis v. Lake Charles Am. Press , 262 La. 875, 265 So.2d 206 (1972). Because a determination of this peremptory exception in Jay's favor would potentially terminate this litigation a......