Johnston v. Corinthian Television Corp.

Citation583 P.2d 1101
Decision Date13 June 1978
Docket NumberNo. 49565,49565
Parties3 Media L. Rep. 2518 Robert W. JOHNSTON, Appellant, v. CORINTHIAN TELEVISION CORPORATION, Appellee.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Jay Dalton, Trial Judge; Court of Appeals, Division 2, Reversed and Remanded; Certiorari Heretofore Granted; Opinion of Court of Appeals Vacated; Judgment of Trial Court Reversed and Remanded with Instructions.

A coach-physical education teacher in public schools brought an action for defamatory statements contained in a television broadcast from a prepared script. Trial court granted summary judgment to the television broadcaster. Decision of Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Certiorari heretofore having been granted, the opinion of the Court of Appeals is vacated. Judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions.

Larry D. Leonard, Blackstock, Joyce, Pollard, Blackstock & Montgomery, Tulsa, for appellant.

Michael R. Ford, G. Douglas Fox, Sidney G. Dunagan, Gable, Gotwals, Rubin, Fox, Johnson & Baker, Tulsa, for appellee.

Harold B. Wahl, Wahl & Gabel, Jacksonville, Fla., L. K. Smith, Boone, Ellison & Smith, Tulsa, for National Newspaper Association, amicus curiae; William G. Mullen, James R. Cregan, Washington, D.C., of counsel.

Warner E. Lovell, Jr., A. David Fagin, Fagin, Hewett, Mathews & Fagin, Oklahoma City, for Oklahoma Education Association, amicus curiae.

LAVENDER, Vice Chief Justice:

Robert W. Johnston (Johnston), a coach-physical education teacher in the Skiatook public schools, brought a defamation action against Corinthian Television Corporation (station), a television broadcaster. The alleged defamatory statements were contained in television newscasts that included prepared scripts. The televised newscasts told of a sixth grader, on seeking to rejoin the grade school wrestling team, being required to submit to a whipping by his gym teacher and fellow students while naked and crawling, with his legs tied, through the legs of other team members.

The Court of Appeals opinion reversed the trial court's granting a summary judgment to the defendant station, found to be based on the trial court's finding of Johnston to be both a public official and public figure, and the station acted without actual malice. That decision determines Johnston to be neither a public official nor public figure, but a private person as in Martin v. Griffin Television, Inc., Okl., 549 P.2d 85 (1976). The Court of Appeals remands so as to apply the Martin test of negligence. See also Weaver v. Pryor Jeffersonian, Okl., 569 F.2d 967, 973 (1977).

This court's review and understanding of federal constitutional problems as relating to libel and slander in the Martin and Weaver opinions make it unnecessary to detail a historical and present day analysis of United States Supreme Court decisions in that general field.

Here, there must first be a determination as to whether Johnston shall be considered a private or non-private person for the purpose of this defamation action. We find him to be a non-private person based on his being a public official.

"A person may become a public official within contemplation of the New York Times rule 1 in either of two ways. First, as that case itself illustrates, he may be an elected official, and the alleged libel must relate to his official capacity. Second, as the Court held in Rosenblatt v. Baer, 2 he may be a government employee with such responsibility that the public has an independent interest in his position and performance, and the alleged libel must relate to his official capacity." (Footnote 1 added; footnote 2 renumbered.) Libel, 55 Texas L.Rev. 525, 531 (1977).

Rosenblatt, supra, found a supervisor of a county ski resort, who was employed by and directly responsible to county commissioners, to be a public official for federal constitutional protection purposes. The opinion refused to accept as a definition of a "public official" the understanding of the term for a local administrative purpose. Guidelines of the term "public official" are contained in the decision: (1) "At the very least, to those among the heirarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs (emphasis added)"; and (2) "(W)here a position in government has such apparent importance that the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performance of the person who holds it, beyond the general public interest in the qualifications and performance(s) of all government employees."

We apply the second standard to Johnston. His position as wrestling coach was of apparent importance in that public school's athletic program for the public to have an independent interest in Johnston's performance as to the method of disciplining a sixth grade boy in conjunction with the grade school wrestling team. This interest went beyond the general interest as to the performance of "all government employees," as indicated by the number of withdrawals of students by parents from Johnston's physical education classes. Though...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Kahn v. Bower, A046094
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 8 Agosto 1991
    ...257, 262-264, and cases cited; contra, Sewell v. Brookbank (Ct.App.1978) 119 Ariz. 422, 581 P.2d 267, 270; Johnston v. Corinthian Television Corp. (Okla.1978) 583 P.2d 1101, 1103.) Nothing in the record before us indicates plaintiff had any significant control over governmental policy. The ......
  • Scott v. News-Herald, NEWS-HERALD
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 6 Agosto 1986
    ...... 2 See Johnston v. Corinthian Television Corp. (Okla.1978), 583 P.2d 1101; ......
  • Grogan v. Kokh Llc
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 16 Marzo 2011
    ...as to the law applied by the district court. Grogan is a public figure. See Johnston v. Corinthian Television Corp., 1978 OK 88, ¶ 5, 583 P.2d 1101, 1102–03. Consequently, the KOKH defendants are not liable for any false statement made during the broadcast unless Grogan can prove “actual ma......
  • Garrard v. Charleston Cnty. Sch. Dist., Appellate Case No. 2016-002525
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 6 Noviembre 2019
    ...N.E.2d 1365, 1368 (1987) (finding a public high school football coach to be a public figure); Johnston v. Corinthian Television Corp. , 583 P.2d 1101, 1102 (Okla. 1978) (finding person holding the dual positions of public school coach and physical education teacher to be a public official);......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT