Shipley v. Knoxville Journal Corp.

• Decision Date: 07 February 1984
• Citation: 11 MediaL.Rep. 1099,670 S.W.2d 222
• Parties: 11 Media L. Rep. 1099 Harold SHIPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KNOXVILLE JOURNAL CORPORATION and Ted Griffith, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

Page 222

670 S.W.2d 222

11 Media L. Rep. 1099

Harold SHIPLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KNOXVILLE JOURNAL CORPORATION and Ted Griffith, Defendants-Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee,

Western Section, at Knoxville.

Feb. 7, 1984.

Application for Permission to Appeal

Denied by Supreme Court May 7, 1984.

P. Douglas Morrison and Thomas H. Dickenson, Knoxville, for plaintiff-appellant.

R. Louis Crossley, Jr., Knoxville, for defendants-appellees.

NEARN, Presiding Judge, Western Section.

This is an appeal from an order in a libel action dismissing the action because "the article and headline in question were not defamatory as alleged ..."

Harold Shipley, the Knoxville City Safety Director, filed suit against the Knoxville Journal Corporation and its reporter Ted Griffith alleging that the defendants had libeled him by publishing a front page news story and headline written by defendant Griffith. The complaint charged that the publication was false; that the publication was done out of malice with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Further, that defendants were notified pursuant to T.C.A. § 29-24-103 to retract the publication and that defendants refused. The plaintiff alleged that his reputation had been injured and that he had suffered humiliation and monetary loss as a result of the libel. A copy of the publication was attached to the complaint and a jury was demanded.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rule 12.02(6) T.R.Civ.P., for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. No affidavits or matters outside the pleadings were considered. In considering such a motion it is the duty of the Court to consider all allegations of the complaint as true. Sullivant v. Americana Homes, Inc. (1980 Tenn.App.W.S.), 605 S.W.2d 246, cert. denied. Upon such consideration if no cause of action is stated upon which relief can be granted, the motion will be sustained. Otherwise, it must be denied. Fuerst v. Methodist Hospital South (1978 Tenn.), 566 S.W.2d 847.

The plaintiff has alleged that the libel was published against him in his official capacity. We consider him a "public figure" as that term is applicable to the law of libel. In order for a public figure to maintain an action in libel against a defendant the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant published the allegedly defamatory communication "(a) know[ing] that the statement is false and that it defames the other person or (b) act[ing] in reckless disregard of these matters." Press, Inc. v. Verran (1978 Tenn.), 569 S.W.2d 435 at 442, quoting from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 580A (1977). We are not now concerned with the matter of proof. The basis of the Rule 12.02(6) motion is that the allegations alone, taken as true, are insufficient to state a claim. Question of proof are left to trial or a motion for summary judgment and this cause has not reached either of those stages.

Therefore, for present purposes we must consider as true the fact that the publication is false, was published maliciously with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Cornpropst v. Sloan (1975 Tenn.), 528 S.W.2d 188. Taking those allegations as true, a cause of action upon which relief can be granted has been stated in this instance, unless the publication, in spite of its falseness and maliciousness, as a matter of law is not defamatory or cannot be so construed by the trier of the facts.

The headlines over the article complained of are "Shipley Orders Baby Jailed--Police veteran says action 'violates human decency.' " The first four paragraphs of the article are as follows:

Knoxville City Safety Director Harold Shipley reportedly ordered an 18-month-old girl jailed along with her moth...