Reiter v. Manna
| Decision Date | 01 September 1994 |
| Citation | 436 Pa.Super. 192,647 A.2d 562 |
| Parties | , 22 Media L. Rep. 2568 Mary Ann REITER and Robert Reiter, Appellants v. John MANNA, individually, and the New Castle News Company, a corporation, a/k/a New Castle News, Appellees. Mary Ann REITER and Alfred V. Papa, Jr., co-executors of the Estate of Alfred V. Papa, deceased, Appellants v. John MANNA, individually, and the New Castle News Company, a corporation, a/k/a New Castle News, Appellees. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Troy Rivetti, Pittsburgh, for appellees.
Before BECK, HUDOCK and CERCONE, JJ.
In these consolidated appeals, the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict (j.n.o.v.) in favor of Appellees John Manna (Manna) and The New Castle News Company, a/k/a New Castle News (New Castle News) in a defamation action. We affirm.
The instant action was instituted as a result of a newspaper headline and article published in the New Castle News on June 10, 1987. Earlier that year, Appellant Mary Ann Reiter was a candidate in a primary election for the office of district justice in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, and Patricia Allen (Allen) was one of her opponents. Allegedly, on two occasions, Allen's campaign signs had been placed on property owned by Albert V. Papa, now deceased, and on each occasion the signs were removed, once by Papa and once by Appellant Robert Reiter. Allen responded by contacting the Lawrence County District Attorney's office, which refused to take legal action. As a result, Allen petitioned the court for a hearing to determine whether the District Attorney should institute the appropriate criminal action. On May 5, 1987, Appellee New Castle News reported that the court had scheduled a hearing date to address Allen's petition. At the conclusion of the hearing, held June 9, 1987, the court determined that the District Attorney did not abuse his discretion because the complaint was essentially a civil matter. The next day, Appellee New Castle News printed the following headline and article:
JUDGE: SIGN THEFT IS A CIVIL COMPLAINT
Judge George P. Kiester ruled yesterday that District Attorney William M. Panella acted properly in disallowing the filing of a criminal complaint involving the alleged theft of campaign signs.
Patricia Allen, a candidate in the primary election for district justice, petitioned the court in May after the district attorney rejected her filing of a criminal complaint. She contended that Alfred Papa and Mary Ann and Robert Reiter had removed her campaign signs from a Shenango Township property. Mrs. Reiter was also a candidate for district justice in the May 19 primary.
Kiester, a senior judge from Butler County, held a hearing yesterday in the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas. Following the session, he issued two orders, one for Papa and the other for Mary Ann and Robert Reiter.
The orders state that Kiester finds that "there has been no abuse of discretion by William M. Panella in disapproving the filing of a criminal application on the application of Patricia Allen."
Judge Kiester also said that Allen's complaint "was civil in nature, rather than criminal."
He also ordered that the cases as captioned, "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Alfred Papa and Mary Ann and Robert Reiter" be stricken.
Mrs. Reiter won the Democratic nomination for district justice and will face David While Appellee John Manna authored the article, in accordance with customary practice, another newspaper employee, Walter T. Kolodziej, drafted the headline.
Rishel, the Republican nominee, in the November election.
On June 11, 1987, following a conversation between Papa, Appellee Manna and two other employees of Appellee New Castle News, Appellee New Castle News published the following correction article which appeared on page 1 and which was continued on page 3:
HEADLINE WAS INCORRECT
A headline on page 1 of yesterday's New Castle News which read "Judge: Sign theft is a civil complaint" was incorrect.
The word "theft" should not have appeared in the headline. It should have read "Judge: Sign case is a civil complaint."
The hearing dealt only with whether the court should approve the filing of a private criminal complaint and not with whether any signs were removed.
Senior Judge George P. Kiester of Butler County issued two orders after the hearing. The two orders contain the same wording with one exception. The only difference is that one concerns Alfred Papa and the other Mary Ann and Robert Reiter. [The] [f]ollowing is Judge Kiester's order:
Len Kolasinski, executive editor of the New Castle News, said today, "We apologize to attorney Papa and Robert Reiter and Mary Ann Reiter for any misinterpretation by the public which the headline may have caused."
Appellants then filed this action seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. In answer to special interrogatories, the jury found, among other things, that the article in question was defamatory as to each Appellant, that Appellees Manna and New Castle News were negligent, and that they acted intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the publication. Thereafter, the jury awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages to Appellant Mary Ann Reiter in the aggregate amount of $250,000, and the remaining Appellants each received $60,000 in punitive damages. Appellees then moved for j.n.o.v., asserting, among other things, that the evidence presented by Appellants did not support the jury's finding that actual malice was proven by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court granted the motion on this basis. This appeal followed, in which the sole issue raised is whether the court abused its discretion in granting j.n.o.v.
Our standard of review is well-settled:
In reviewing a motion for judgment n.o.v., "the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, and he must be given the benefit of every reasonable inference of fact arising therefrom, and any conflict in the evidence must be resolved in his favor." Broxie v. Household Finance Company, 472 Pa. 373, 380, 372 A.2d 741, 745 (1977). See also Metts v. Griglak, 438 Pa. 392, 264 A.2d 684 (1970) and Gonzalez v. United States Steel Corp., 484 Pa. 277, 398 A.2d 1378 (1979). Moreover [a] judgment n.o.v. should only be entered in a clear case and any doubts must be resolved in favor of the verdict winner. See Atkins v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 489 Pa. 344, 414 A.2d 100 (1980) and Stewart v. Chernicky, 439 Pa. 43, 266 A.2d 259 (1970).
McDermott v. Biddle, 436 Pa.Super. 94, 104, 647 A.2d 514, 519 (1994) (quoting
Moure v. Raeuchle, 529 Pa. 394, 402, 604 A.2d 1003, 1007 (1992).
With regard to proof of actual malice, this Court has stated:
"The burden of proving 'actual malice' requires the plaintiff to demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant realized that his statement was false or that he subjectively entertained serious doubt as to the truth of his statement." Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., [466 U.S. 485, 511, n. 30, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 1965 n. 30, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1985) ].
Reckless disregard for the truth, i.e. "actual malice", " " Frisk v. The News Company, 361 Pa.Super. 536, 543, 523 A.2d 347, 350 (1986), allo[c]. denied, 515 Pa. 614, 530 A.2d 867 (1987), quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, [390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1325, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968) ]....
"Mere negligence or carelessness is not evidence of actual malice". Curran v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 376 Pa.Super. 508, 519, 546 A.2d 639, 645 (1988) (emphasis added). Smith v. A Pocono Country Place Property Owners Association, Inc., [686 F.Supp. 1053, 1061 (1987) ]....
Oweida v. Tribune-Review Publishing Company, 410 Pa.Super. 112, 135-36, 599 A.2d 230, 242-43 (1991), alloc. den., 529 Pa. 670, 605 A.2d 334 (1992). Moreover, in a defamation action, "[t]he sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury's finding of actual malice is a question of law." Fitzpatrick v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 389 Pa.Super. 438, 443, 567 A.2d 684, 687 (1989), alloc. den., 525 Pa. 618, 577 A.2d 890 (1990) (citing Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, [491 U.S. 657, 109 S.Ct. 2678, 105 L.Ed.2d 562 (1989)). Thus, this Court " 'is to make an independent examination of the evidence adduced to determine if it was constitutionally sufficient to warrant a finding by the jury of actual malice, ...' " Curran v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 376 Pa.Super. 508, 516, 546 A.2d 639, 643-44 (1988), alloc. den., 522 Pa. 576, 559 A.2d 37 (1989) (quot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gleason v. Smolinski
...however, to overcome a conditional privilege that arises at common law and not from the [f]irst [a]mendment"); Reiter v. Manna, 436 Pa. Super. 192, 198-99, 647 A.2d 562 (1994) ("a private figure plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages unless he or she demonstrates actual malice by clear a......
-
Gleason v. Smolinski
...however, to overcome a conditional privilege that arises at common law and not from the [f]irst [a]mendment"); Reiter v. Manna, 436 Pa.Super. 192, 198–99, 647 A.2d 562 (1994) ("a private figure plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages unless he or she demonstrates actual malice by clear an......
-
Weaver v. Lancaster Newspapers Inc.
...the veracity of information before publication, this fault does not rise to the level of actual malice. Reiter v. Manna, 436 Pa.Super. 192, 647 A.2d 562, 565 (1994) (citations, quotations, and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis `[W]hile `actual malice' may be shown by circumstantial evidenc......
-
Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily News
...17 Actual malice is not found merely through a showing of ill will or "malice" in the ordinary sense of the term. Reiter v. Manna, 436 Pa.Super. 192, 647 A.2d 562, 567 (1994). "`Nor can the fact that the defendant published the defamatory material in order to increase its profits suffice to......