Saro Corp. v. Waterman Broadcasting Corp.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-02248,WBBH-TV,90-02248 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly D319, 19 Media L. Rep. 2031 SARO CORPORATION; Kingdom Corporation; McGregor Transmission, Inc.; Englewood Transmission, Inc.; and Transmission Kingdom International, Inc., Appellants, v. WATERMAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION d/b/a; Leisa Zigman; and Theresa Lombardi, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William E. Stockman, of Allen, Knudsen, DeBoest, Edwards & Roberts, P.A., Fort Myers, for appellants.
Steven Carta, of Simpson, Henderson, Savage & Carta, Fort Myers, for appellees.
This appeal arises from a final summary judgment in favor of the appellees in a defamation action. We reverse. The appellants shall be collectively known as "Transmission Kingdom" and the appellees as "WBBH."
Transmission Kingdom filed its complaint against WBBH, a local television station, alleging that it had been defamed in a series of television broadcasts which asserted that Transmission Kingdom had recommended repair work that was not necessary and charged for work that it did not perform. WBBH raised numerous defenses, the majority of which presented factual questions for the trier of fact. For the purpose of this appeal, we determine two of the defenses to be pertinent: first, that Transmission Kingdom is a "limited public figure" requiring the proof of actual malice and, second, that if Transmission Kingdom is a "private claimant," that the broadcasts were privileged.
Before a "public figure" may recover damages in a defamation action, the public figure must prove actual malice on WBBH does not contend that Transmission Kingdom is a general public figure. Nor does Transmission Kingdom fit into the limited public figure test. WBBH created a public controversy, not Transmission Kingdom. The facts do not support a conclusion that Transmission Kingdom thrust itself into that controversy as a central figure and brought attention upon itself. Further, the facts are certainly not beyond dispute for the purpose of summary judgment; when viewed in the light most favorable to Transmission Kingdom, the facts show Transmission Kingdom was dragged into a limelight it least desired. 1
the part of the disseminator of the information. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967). There are two classes of public figures, "general" and "limited." General public figures are individuals who, by reason of fame or notoriety in a community, will in all cases be required to prove actual malice. Limited public figures, on the other hand, are individuals who have thrust themselves forward in a particular public controversy and are therefore required to prove actual malice only in regard to certain issues. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). If the existence of a public controversy is established, the court must apply a two-part test to determine if a specific individual is a limited public figure for the purpose of that controversy. First, the court must determine whether the individual played a central role in the controversy. Second, it must determine whether the alleged defamation was germane to the individual's role in the controversy. Della-Donna v. Gore Newspapers Co., 489 So.2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 494 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1986). The "public figure status" of a claimant is a question of law to be determined by the court. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 86 S.Ct. 669, 15...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Wells
...(stating that public figure status "is a question of law to be determined by the court") (quoting Saro Corp. v. Waterman Broad. Corp., 595 So.2d 87, 89 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992) ).For one, Florida courts have found public figure status in circumstances similar to this one. In Scholz v. RDV......
-
Sirer v. Aksoy
... ... cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v ... Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see ... certain issues.” Saro Corp. v. Waterman ... Broadcasting Corp., 595 So.2d ... ...
- D.B. v. State
-
MILE MARKER INC. v. Petersen Publishing, LLC
...So.2d 666, 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We find Mile Marker is a "public figure" in the constitutional sense. See Saro Corp. v. Waterman Broad. Corp., 595 So.2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)(the "public figure status" of a defamation claimant is a question of law to be determined by the court). Under U.......
-
Defamation & privacy
...718 So.2d 170 (Fla. 1998). We find Mile Marker is a “public figure” in the constitutional sense. See Saro Corp. v. Waterman Broad. Corp. , 595 So.2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (the “public figure status” of a defamation claimant is a question of law to be determined by the court). Under U.S. con......