George v. Fabri
Decision Date | 25 June 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 25311.,25311. |
Citation | 345 S.C. 440,548 S.E.2d 868 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | G. Robert GEORGE and G. Robert George & Associates, Inc., Appellants, v. Margaret D. FABRI, Respondent. |
Charles J. Baker, III, of Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee, P.A., of Charleston, for appellants.
Armand Derfner and D. Peters Wilborn, Jr., of Derfner & Wilborn, LLC, of Charleston, for respondent.
Appellants G. Robert George (George) and G. Robert George and Associates, Inc. (GRGA) appeal from the grant of summary judgment to respondent Margaret D. Fabri (Fabri). We affirm.
This is a defamation case. In November 1997, Fabri and George opposed each other as candidates for the James Island District 12 seat on the Charleston City Council. In the first election, Fabri won by one vote. This election was set aside due to a poll worker's error. George won the second election. The allegations of defamation relate to statements Fabri made in between the two elections.
The statements were published on Fabri's website and in campaign materials. There are three categories of statements at issue: (1) those related to Dr. Henry Jordan and the South Carolina Citizens for Life's endorsement of George; (2) those related to a potential conflict of interest George would have as a council member due to his position as district engineer of the James Island Public Service District (JIPSD); and (3) those related to engineering contracts George and GRGA received from the JIPSD.
South Carolina Citizens for Life is a pro-life organization, and LIFEPAC is its political action committee. In between the two November elections, LIFEPAC endorsed George in a letter addressed "Dear Pro-Life Voter."1 Included in the printed letterhead were the names of those on the Advisory Board of South Carolina Citizens for Life. Henry Jordan, a surgeon from Anderson, was listed on the letterhead. Dr. Jordan, a member of the state Board of Education, had made state-wide news a few months before when, during a Board meeting, he advocated posting the Ten Commandments in all public schools and said "Screw the Buddhists and kill the Muslims."
On the day before the election, in response to the endorsement, Fabri posted an item on her website which stated as follows in pertinent part:
George alleged in his complaint that these statements implied that he is racist and holds supremacist views.
Fabri testified in her deposition that after reading the endorsement letter and seeing Dr. Jordan's name on the letterhead, it was clear to her that Dr. Jordan was endorsing George. According to Fabri, Dr. Jordan's remarks about Buddhists and Muslims could be perceived as being supremacist and racist. She stated, however, that she did not know what George thought of Dr. Jordan's comments, and did not know if George is a racist. Nonetheless, in her opinion, it is reasonable to assume that a candidate who is endorsed by an organization with Dr. Jordan as a member could be considered as sharing similar beliefs as Dr. Jordan. Furthermore, Fabri testified that George must have had some input into getting and accepting the endorsement.
Steve Abrams, Fabri's public relations consultant,2 testified that he viewed Dr. Jordan's name on the letterhead as indicative of his active involvement in the organization. Abrams stated that since Dr. Jordan's remarks were about Buddhists and Muslims "who probably aren't Caucasians," a racial issue could be implied. In addition, Abrams testified that candidates are never "spontaneously endorsed" but instead have to "do something" to get endorsed.3 He further stated that the intention of the statement was to show that George essentially accepted an endorsement from Dr. Jordan and that this was representative of George's "true nature."
Fabri made statements related to George's position as district engineer of the JIPSD and the fact that a seat on city council would result in a conflict of interest for him:
Candidate G. Robert George is a paid engineering consultant to the James Island PSD. Since the City of Charleston CPW and the James Island PSD have overlapping jurisdictions that have resulted in nasty legal battles, and since the CPW is answerable to the city council, Mr. George will have a conflict of interest should he be elected to city council and retain his PSD contracts. We think Mr. George owes the voters an explanation of what actions he will take to avoid a conflict, such as stepping down as a consultant to the PSD. ...
In addition, Fabri published the following statement on her website:
Hence, the reason he's so defensive about this matter. Fabri testified it was her belief that since George had an economic interest in the "viability" of the JIPSD and "the stated objective of the City of Charleston was to annex [the JIPSD] out of existence," then his election to the city council could constitute a conflict of interest.
After the election, George resigned as the JIPSD's district engineer. According to George, he resigned to fulfill a campaign promise, and not because there was any ethical conflict. George and GRGA continue to perform other engineering services for the JIPSD; however, pursuant to a State Ethics Commission opinion, George does not vote on any matters that directly affect GRGA's economic interests.
Fabri published the following statement regarding engineering contracts George received from the JIPSD:
George alleged that these statements were defamatory because the consulting contracts were awarded after a "public competitive selection process and were not the result of insider dealing or nepotism." George was an elected JIPSD commissioner from 1977 to 1980, and he had served as the chair of the JIPSD. His father-in-law, George Witham, served as a commissioner in the 1980's. He was not related to any of the commissioners who served on the JIPSD from 1992 through 1997.
Fabri testified that she had been told that George "appeared to be getting all the contracts" with the JIPSD. She stated that a JIPSD commissioner told her that in the 1980's George's father-in-law wanted the JIPSD to hire George as district engineer, and that George was upset when he was not selected. Moreover, Fabri stated that loyalty to George's father-in-law by those who had served with him on JIPSD extended to support for George. In her opinion, this was nepotism.
Regarding the statement that the contracts did not require "competitive bidding," Fabri testified she...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. Weinberg
...require the services of a fact finder." Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58, 69, 580 S.E.2d 433, 438 (2003) (quoting George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 452, 548 S.E.2d 868, 874 (2001)); Rumpf v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 357 S.C. 386, 593 S.E.2d 183 (Ct.App.2004). Summary judgment is a drast......
-
Schmidt v. Courtney
...of cases which do not require the services of a fact finder. Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58, 580 S.E.2d 433 (2003); George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 548 S.E.2d 868 (2001). Schmidt argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Kemper Sports on this novel claim prior to the oppor......
-
Erickson v. Jones Street Publishers
...using the same substantive evidentiary standard of proof the jury is required to use in a particular case. George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 451-54, 548 S.E.2d 868, 874-75 (2001). An appellate court reviews the granting of such a motion using the same standard. Id. In an action at law, on appe......
-
Singleton v. Sherer
...require the services of a fact finder." Dawkins v. Fields, 354 S.C. 58, 69, 580 S.E.2d 433, 438 (2003) (quoting George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 452, 548 S.E.2d 868, 874 (2001)); Rumpf v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 357 S.C. 386, 593 S.E.2d 183 (Ct. App.2004). Summary judgment is a dras......
-
VOLUME I Chapter 4 Employment-Related Torts
...Co., Inc., 384 S.C. 491, 682 S.E.2d 813 (2009); Anderson v. Augusta Chronicle, 365 S.C. 589, 619 S.E.2d 428 (2005); see George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 548 S.E.2d 868 (2001).[113] Anderson v. Augusta Chronicle, 365 S.C. 589, 619 S.E.2d 428 (2005).[114] Goodwin v. Kennedy, 347 S.C. 30, 552 S.......
-
Rule 56. Summary Judgment
...For summary judgment purposes, a court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. E.g., George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 452, 548 S.E.2d 868, 874 (2001). Because it is "a drastic remedy, summary judgment should be cautiously invoked so that no person will be impr......
-
C. Elements Defined
...disregard requires more than departure from reasonably prudent conduct; evidence of constitutional malice insufficient); George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 548 S.E.2d 868 (2001) (actual malice governed by subjective standard testing defendant's good faith belief of truth of statement); Fleming ......
-
A. Defamation
...365 S.C. 589, 594-95, 619 S.E.2d 428, 431 (2005); Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488, 494-95, 567 S.E.2d 857, 860-61 (2002); George v. Fabri, 345 S.C. 440, 451, 456, 548 S.E.2d 868, 874, 876 (2001); Holtzscheiter v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc., 332 S.C. 502, 522-23, 506 S.E.2d 497, 508 (1998); Mill......