Edelstein v. WFTV, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Edelstein v. WFTV, Inc.

798 So. 2d 797, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15036, 2001 WL 1267413

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 24, 2001

DocketNo. 4D01-1192

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 798 So. 2d 797 (Edelstein v. WFTV, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edelstein v. WFTV, Inc., 798 So. 2d 797, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15036, 2001 WL 1267413 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We write to explain our rationale for affirming the dismissal of the complaint.

Plaintiffs employment was terminated. Whether it was by unilateral action of his employer, as defendant argues, or by common agreement, as he argues, is not the important issue for purposes of the legal question presented. What is important is that the Palm Beach Post published a news item that he had been “fired,” that plaintiff alleges that this statement is defamatory “per se” and damages from it are presumed and that he declined the privilege of further amending his complaint.

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), the Court recognized the “strong and legit[798]*798imate state interest in compensating private individuals for injury to reputation,” 418 U.S. at 348, 94 S.Ct. 2997, but concluded that under the First Amendment such a legitimate state interest “extends no further than compensation for actual injury.” 418 U.S. at 349, 94 S.Ct. 2997. In Mid-Florida Television Corp. v. Boyles, 467 So.2d 282 (Fla.1985), the court held that Gerbz signaled the end of the theory of libel “per se” in Florida, except as a “useful shorthand” for the notion that the defamatory words are actionable without resort to innuendo. 467 So.2d at 283.

The court’s decision in Boyles makes clear that since Gerbz a plaintiff suing a media defendant must nevertheless plead and prove actual injury. Yet, actual injury is precisely what plaintiff abjures having to plead and prove in this action for defamatory falsehood. Under Gerbz and Boyles we have no alternative to affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the action.

DELL, FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We write to explain our rationale for affirming the dismissal of the complaint.

Plaintiffs employment was terminated. Whether it was by unilateral action of his employer, as defendant argues, or by common agreement, as he argues, is not the important issue for purposes of the legal question presented. What is important is that the Palm Beach Post published a news item that he had been “fired,” that plaintiff alleges that this statement is defamatory “per se” and damages from it are presumed and that he declined the privilege of further amending his complaint.

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), the Court recognized the “strong and legit[798]*798imate state interest in compensating private individuals for injury to reputation,” 418 U.S. at 348, 94 S.Ct. 2997, but concluded that under the First Amendment such a legitimate state interest “extends no further than compensation for actual injury.” 418 U.S. at 349, 94 S.Ct. 2997. In Mid-Florida Television Corp. v. Boyles, 467 So.2d 282 (Fla.1985), the court held that Gerbz signaled the end of the theory of libel “per se” in Florida, except as a “useful shorthand” for the notion that the defamatory words are actionable without resort to innuendo. 467 So.2d at 283.

The court’s decision in Boyles makes clear that since Gerbz a plaintiff suing a media defendant must nevertheless plead and prove actual injury. Yet, actual injury is precisely what plaintiff abjures having to plead and prove in this action for defamatory falsehood. Under Gerbz and Boyles we have no alternative to affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the action.

DELL, FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

798 So. 2d 797, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15036, 2001 WL 1267413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edelstein-v-wftv-inc-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack