Frisk v. News Co.

523 A.2d 347, 361 Pa. Super. 536, 13 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1835, 1986 Pa. Super. LEXIS 12501
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 26, 1986
Docket00834
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 523 A.2d 347 (Frisk v. News Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Frisk v. News Co., 523 A.2d 347, 361 Pa. Super. 536, 13 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1835, 1986 Pa. Super. LEXIS 12501 (Pa. 1986).

Opinion

MONTEMURO, Judge:

This libel action arose out of the publication of two articles, on May 4 and 7, 1979, respectively, in appellant’s newspaper, the New Castle News. (See Appendix).

*539 Appellees’ case was tried in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, before the Honorable George P. Kies-ter, Specially Presiding, and a jury. The trial commenced on October 24, 1984, and verdicts were rendered on November 9, 1984, in favor of appellee, Nick A. Frisk, Jr., in the amount of $100,000.00 and in favor of appellee, Ricardi C. Gatto, in the amount of $400,000.00. Subsequently, on November 10, 1984, the jury awarded punitive damages to each of the appellees in the amount of $175,000.00.

Thereafter, both appellant and appellees filed timely motions for post-trial relief. In an opinion and order dated May 20, 1985, the court below denied appellees motions for additur and delay damages, and further directed as follows:

ORDER

NOW, this 20th day of May, 1985, Defendant’s Motion for Judgment N.O.V. is denied.
If Plaintiff, Nick A. Frisk, Jr., files a remittitur of $125,000 on the punitive damage verdict within 20 days of notice of the filing of this Order, Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial is denied, and it shall be entered on the verdicts as so amended. Otherwise, Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial is granted.
If Plaintiff, Ricardi C. Gatto, files with the Court within 20 days of notice of filing of this order, a remittitur of $125,000 on the punitive damage verdict, Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial is denied and judgment shall be entered on the verdicts as amended.
If a remittitur by Ricardi C. Gatto is not filed, Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial is granted.

On May 28, 1985, each appellee remitted his punitive damage award in excess of $50,000.00. The respective judgments against appellant were accordingly entered eo die and this timely appeal followed.

Judge Kiester ably set forth the pertinent facts underlying this action:

Nick A. Frisk, Jr., and Ricardi C. Gatto brought this libel action alleging they were defamed by front-page *540 articles/news reports which appeared in the New Castle News, a daily newspaper published by the News Company, Defendant. In May of 1979, the time of the publications, Mr. Gatto was president of the Ellwood City Borough Council and Attorney Frisk was borough solicitor. The news reports were written by Dan Callahan, a reporter for Defendant, and they related to the 1976 zoning of, property in Ellwood City owned by Attorney Frisk.
The news story was based on an interview which Reporter Dan Callahan had with Roy Meehan and Martin Kovach following a meeting of the Ellwood City Planning Commission the evening of May 3, 1979. Mr. Meehan and Mr. Kovach were members of the Planning Commission.
The news item published May 4, 1979, was titled in large letters (V2 inch high extending in length 11 inches)
‘Officials expose tampered map’
The second news item published May 7, 1979, contained a photograph of the Frisk property on Fountain Avenue. Below the picture in large print were two titles:
‘Involving Frisk property’
‘Three zoning maps altered’
Each of the news items clearly, indisputably infer that Mr. Gatto and Attorney Frisk in 1976 had engaged in illegally altering the Ellwood City zoning map for the benefit of the Frisk property.
Primary elections were scheduled for May 15, 1979. It is highly noteworthy that Mr. Kovach, Mr. Meehan and Mr. Gatto were candidates for city council. Mr. Gatto blamed his defeat on the news stories written by Mr. Callahan and published on May 4, 1979, and May 7, 1979, in the New Castle News.
The evidence establishes that in July, 1976 Attorney Frisk and fourteen other property owners had requested zoning changes. The requested changes were placed by borough employees on various ‘working’ maps to aid the *541 Commission in understanding what the applicants requested. The zoning change requested by Attorney Frisk in 1976 had been denied by the Commission and was not included in the proposed zoning map, later approved by the Commission and submitted to the Borough Council for adoption.
After reading the May 4 article, Attorney Frisk that same evening made numerous phone calls including several to Mr. Callahan and Mr. Vosburg who was the managing editor of the New Castle News. Attorney Frisk offered proof that the accusation was false. He demanded a retraction and the printing of ‘his side of the story.’
Attorney Frisk had been present in the borough building the evening of May 3. He had seen Mr. Callahan. Attorney Frisk demanded an explanation from Mr. Callahan as to his reason for not asking him at that time about the truth of falsity of the accusation. Mr. Callahan agreed to meet with Mr. Frisk at the Frisk law office on Saturday, May 5, 1976 [sic], at 9 A.M. When Mr. Callahan did not appear that morning, Attorney Frisk phoned and was told that Mr. Vosburg, the managing editor, was in charge of the story.
The false statements and inferences were re-published by Defendant on May 7, 1979. The denials transmitted to Defendant by Attorney Frisk were not published.
On Tuesday, May 8, 1979, Attorney Frisk obtained a statement from Thomas A. Stoner who had been administrative assistant to the borough manager in 1976. This statement explained the work maps and what had been done with these maps in 1976. A copy of this explanation was given to the New Castle News on May 9 or May 10, 1979. Neither the statement of Mr. Stoner nor the denials of Mr. Frisk and Mr. Gatto were published.
At trial Mr. Callahan who was available to both parties was not called as a witness. The Court sustained Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s offer of the deposition of Mr. *542 Callahan. The reason was that the deposition failed to meet the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Witnesses for Plaintiffs testified that the reputations of the Plaintiffs had been harmed by the news stories. On the other hand, defense witnesses testified that the reputations of the Plaintiffs for honesty and integrity prior to May 4, 1979 was [sic] bad.
The foregoing is an abbreviated version of the evidence in the case. The evidence is undisputed that neither Attorney Frisk nor Mr. Gatto or anyone else had altered the borough zoning maps.

Lower court opinion at 4-7.

As framed by appellant in its “Statement of the Questions Involved”, the following issues are presented for our consideration:

1.

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

Related

Joseph v. Scranton Times, L.P.
89 A.3d 251 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)
Diamond Triumph Auto Glass, Inc. v. Safelite Glass Corp.
441 F. Supp. 2d 695 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2006)
Capozzi v. Lucas
148 F. App'x 138 (Third Circuit, 2005)
Franklin Pre v. NY Times Co
Third Circuit, 2005
Sprague v. American Bar Ass'n
276 F. Supp. 2d 365 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2003)
Beverly Entr Inc v. Trump
Third Circuit, 1999
Wildman v. Homa
32 Pa. D. & C.4th 468 (Washington County Court of Common Pleas, 1996)
D.S. v. DePaul Institute
32 Pa. D. & C.4th 328 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1996)
Reiter v. Manna
647 A.2d 562 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1994)
McDermott v. Biddle
647 A.2d 514 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1994)
Oweida v. Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
599 A.2d 230 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1991)
Savitsky v. Shenandoah Valley Publishing Corp.
566 A.2d 901 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1989)
Curran v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.
546 A.2d 639 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1988)
DiSalle v. P.G. Publishing Co.
544 A.2d 1345 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1988)
Godwin v. Daily Local News Co.
47 Pa. D. & C.3d 639 (Chester County Court of Common Pleas, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
523 A.2d 347, 361 Pa. Super. 536, 13 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1835, 1986 Pa. Super. LEXIS 12501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frisk-v-news-co-pa-1986.