Granda-Centeno v. Lara, GRANDA-CENTEN
| Decision Date | 27 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | GRANDA-CENTEN,A,No. 85-1202,85-1202 |
| Citation | 489 So.2d 142,11 Fla. L. Weekly 1200 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1200 Antonioppellant, v. Pedro LARA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Breger & Breger and Richard Breger, North Miami Beach, for appellant.
Penzick & Parker and John Parker, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and NESBITT, JJ.
Granda-Centeno appeals a judgment on a jury verdict in a defamation action. We find one of the points raised by Granda-Centeno meritorious and reverse for a new trial.
Mr. Lara sued alleging that he was libeled in a letter written by Granda-Centeno. The letter indicated that copies were being sent to twenty-six persons or entities. The evidence at trial established the receipt and reading of the letter only by Mrs. Lara 1 and Mr. Regelado, an employee of Bank of America which was one of the entities listed in the letter. Regelado had done business with Granda-Centeno in Quito, Ecuador in 1976. In 1977, Regelado was transferred to Venezuela. In 1978, his replacement in Quito, Robert Sola, received a copy of Granda-Centeno's letter. Sola delivered the copy of the letter to Regelado, who read it.
Granda-Centeno contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that "[p]ublication is the sending of the libelous writing to at least one other person and to the plaintiff." 2 We agree. Publication of defamatory matter is communication of the statement to a third person. Tyler v. Garris, 292 So.2d 427, 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). To communicate or publish is to make known, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 266, 952 (1983), and requires that someone hear or read the information communicated. Evidence that a defamatory writing was sent is insufficient to prove publication. Owner's Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ott, 402 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Consequently, the instruction, which allowed the jury to find a publication in the mere sending of the letter, was erroneous. It allowed the jury to find a publication, and thus liability, without a finding that the letter was actually received and read. 3 Accordingly, the judgment in favor of Lara is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
1 Mrs. Lara's opening and reading of the letter, which was addressed to Mr. Lara, does not qualify as a publication. See Farris v. Tvedten, 274 Ark. 185, 623 S.W.2d 205 (1981) ().
2 While not at issue in this appeal, we point out for the benefit of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pelullo v. Patterson
...Florida law provides that if a republication was "reasonably foreseeable," the defendant can be held liable. Granda-Centeno v. Lara, 489 So.2d 142, 143 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The question of reasonable foreseeability is a question of fact for the jury. Id.; accord Shepard v. Nabb, 84 Md.A......
-
Corsi v. Newsmax Media, Inc.
...2010). Put simply, "[p]ublication of defamatory matter is communication of the statement to a third person." Granda-Centeno v. Lara , 489 So. 2d 142, 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Here, Corsi acknowledges that Fairbanks, and Fairbanks alone, said the allegedly defamatory words at issue. Compl. ¶¶......
-
Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc.
...a defendant may be liable for defamation if the republication by a third party was “reasonably foreseeable.” Granda–Centeno v. Lara, 489 So.2d 142, 143 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). At least one other court has discussed that legal standard, declining to follow a theory of liability based on rea......
-
American Airlines, Inc. v. Geddes
...not qualify. See e.g., American Ideal Mgmt., Inc. v. Dale Village, Inc., 567 So.2d 497, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Granda-Centeno v. Lara, 489 So.2d 142, 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). When the entity alleged to have committed the defamation is a corporation, the courts have held that statements mad......