Thibadeau v. Crane

• Decision Date: 01 April 1974
• Docket Number: No. 49126,No. 3,49126,3
• Citation: 131 Ga.App. 591,206 S.E.2d 609
• Parties: Richard A. THIBADEAU, Sr. v. William C. CRANE et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 609

206 S.E.2d 609

131 Ga.App. 591

Richard A. THIBADEAU, Sr. v. William C. CRANE et al.

No. 49126.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

April 1, 1974.

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1974.

L. C. Chrietzberg, Decatur, for appellant.

Mackay & Elliott, James A. Mackay, Thomas W. Elliott, Kathleen M. Jones, Decatur, for appellees.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

EBERHARDT, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action for newspaper libel complaining that the various defendants intended to and maliciously attempted to injure and defame him, using defendant newspapers 'as a cloak for private malice,' by composing, printing and publishing false news stories and editorials about him in his capacity as a superior court judge. The twelve-page complaint is replete with allegations of malicious intent. Some of the clippings from the newspapers, attached to the complaint as exhibits, charge him, inter alia, with 'abuse of judicial power' and 'using the power of his position for personal vendettas' in various particulars.

The defendants answered, asserting in their Fifth Defense that 'The editorials complained of consisted of comments upon the acts of a public man in his public capacity and were made without malice and as such are privileged.' They then moved for summary judgment without supporting affidavits or other supportive papers (Code Ann. § 81A-156(b)). In sustaining the motion on the basis of the complaint and answer, the trial court recited: 'The court finds no false statement.' ¹ Plaintiff appeals. Held:

1. In this summary judgment proceeding the trial court was without authority to make a finding of fact that the statements were not false, and genuine issues of material fact remain as to the truth or falsity of the matter complained of.

2. In the present posture of the case, genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the statements were made with actual malice, for no recovery is authorized unless it shall appear that the statements were false and were made with actual malice. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,376 U.S. 254, 279, 84 S.Ct. 710, 726, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, it was held that a public official is prohibited from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct 'unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'-that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' There is no privilege protecting the use of calculated falsehood. 'Although honest utterance, even if inaccurate, may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free speech, it does not follow that the lie, knowingly and deliberately published about a public official, should enjoy a like immunity . . . For the use of the known lie as a tool is at once at odds with the premise of democratic government and with the orderly manner in which economic, social, or political change is to be effected. Calculated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which 'are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality . . .' (Cit.) Hence the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection.' Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75, 85 S.Ct. 209, 216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125. 'The defendant in a defamation action brought by a public official cannot . . . automatically insure a favorable verdict (or summary judgment) by testifying that he published with a belief that the statements were true. The finder of fact must determine whether the publication was indeed made in good faith.' St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1326, 20 L.Ed.2d 262. See also Greenbelt Co-op. Pub. Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6; Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 91 S.Ct. 1811, 29 L.Ed.2d 296.

The question as to actual malice must go to the jury.

3. At trial, plaintiff may not rely upon statutory or case law at variance with Constitutional principles. 'It matters not that that law has been applied in a civil action and that it is common law only, though supplemented by statute . . . The test is not the form in which state power has been applied but, whatever the form, whether such power has in fact been exercised.' New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265, 84 S.Ct. 710, 718, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 697, supra. Accordingly, as the cases cited above dictate, the charge of the court, the proof, etc. at trial will be subject to close Constitutional scrutiny. Thus actual malice must be shown with 'convincing clarity,' id., pp. 285-286, 84 S.Ct. 710; 'only those false statements made with the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity demanded by New York Times may be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions.' Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74, 85 S.Ct. 209, 216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125, 133, supra. 'These cases are clear that reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.' St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1325, supra. The jury may not be 'permitted to find liability merely on the basis of a combination of falsehood and general hostility.' Greenbelt Co-op. Pub. Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6,...