Malson v. Palmer Broadcasting Group

Decision Date08 April 1997
Docket NumberNo. 85761,KFOR-TV,85761
Citation1997 OK 42,936 P.2d 940
Parties25 Media L. Rep. 1957, 1997 OK 42 Glen MALSON and Virginia Malson, husband and wife, dba M & M Drum Company, Appellants, v. PALMER BROADCASTING GROUP, a general partnership, dba, and Brad Edwards, an individual, Appellees.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

Victor R. Grider, Oklahoma City, for Appellants.

Robert D. Nelon, Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, Oklahoma City, for Appellees.

SIMMS, Justice.

We promulgate this opinion to re-emphasize the well established principle that a motion for summary judgment may not be granted when there are disputed issues of material fact presented in the motion and response which are supported by evidentiary materials such as affidavits.

This is a defamation case. The defendants below are Brad Edwards, a television reporter, and his employer, Palmer Broadcasting Group, a general partnership d/b/a KFOR-TV (an Oklahoma City television station). Mr. Edwards reported, and the station broadcast, two television news stories, alleging that plaintiffs, in the operation of their business (a 55 gallon drum cleaning company) were dumping toxic chemical residues directly into the Oklahoma City sewer system.

Plaintiffs commenced this action in the district court, claiming that Mr. Edwards and the television station falsely and maliciously published an untrue report and falsely accused plaintiffs of committing crimes and creating a public health hazard. Plaintiffs alleged that their reputations were damaged and their business has suffered.

Defendants (collectively referred to as television station) filed a motion for summary judgment. Television station admitted that there was a dispute concerning whether there were any factual errors in the broadcasts. However, television station claimed that even if the broadcasts contained factual errors (which station denied) the plaintiffs' claims must fail because television station was not negligent in investigating and reporting the stories. In support of this claim, television station attached an affidavit of an expert, in which the expert opined that television station exercised the degree of care which ordinarily prudent persons engaged in the news business usually exercise under similar circumstances.

In response to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs disputed the assertion that television station was not negligent. To support their claim of negligence, plaintiffs attached the affidavit of their expert. In the affidavit, the expert explained in detail the ways in which the investigation and reporting of the news stories fell, in his opinion, below the degree of care which ordinarily prudent persons engaged in the news business usually exercise under similar circumstances.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, stating that "[t]here is no evidence of negligence of defendants' presented to the Court." The plaintiffs filed a timely motion for new trial, contending that the court erred in ignoring or disregarding the affidavit of plaintiffs' expert, and in resolving disputed issues of fact in favor of the defendants. The trial court denied the motion for new trial and plaintiffs timely commenced this appeal.

The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, finding that the affidavit of plaintiffs' expert was not sufficient to withstand summary judgment and to justify a trial. The Court of Civil Appeals' opinion shows that in making this determination, it improperly weighed the evidentiary materials presented in the motion for summary judgment and response, and decided that the defendants were not negligent.

We previously granted certiorari. We vacate the Court of Civil Appeals opinion, reverse the summary judgment granted by the trial court, and remand for further proceedings. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment, and abused its discretion in failing to grant the new trial motion, when summary judgment was clearly improper in this case.

The parties agree that the plaintiffs are private individuals and not public figures. In Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), the United States Supreme Court allowed the states to define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability of the news media for defamatory falsehoods which injure a private individual. In Martin v. Griffin...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Mendus v. Morgan & Associates, PC
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 29 Junio 1999
    ...whether there is a substantial controversy as to one material fact. Sperling v. Marler, 1998 OK 81, 963 P.2d 577; Malson v. Palmer Broadcasting Group, 1997 OK 42, 936 P.2d 940. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-......
  • Magnusson v. New York Times Co.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 29 Junio 2004
    ...affidavit submitted by Magnusson regarding the issue of negligence was sufficient to raise a question of fact. See, Malson v. Palmer Broadcasting Group, 1997 OK 42, ¶ 10, 936 P.2d 940; and 2) whether the trial court handled the issue concerning the waiver of the patient-client privilege as ......
  • Doe v. First Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of Tulsa, 115,182
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 19 Diciembre 2017
    ...for subject matter jurisdiction into a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or a motion for summary judgment.7 Malson v. Palmer Broadcasting , 1997 OK 42, ¶ 11, 936 P.2d 940, 942.8 The Court specifically stated:All who unite themselves to such a body do so with an implied consent ......
  • Atwood v. Atwood
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • 3 Abril 2001
    ...whether there is a substantial controversy as to one material fact. Sperling v. Marler, 1998 OK 81, 963 P.2d 577; Malson v. Palmer Broadcasting Group, 1997 OK 42, 936 P.2d 940. All inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the materials must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-......
  • 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