McNamara v. Koehler

429 P.3d 6
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedAugust 6, 2018
DocketNo. 77157-4-I
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 429 P.3d 6 (McNamara v. Koehler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McNamara v. Koehler, 429 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

1. The Fair Report Privilege 6

¶ 13 Washington recognizes the fair report privilege-a conditional privilege that protects a republisher of a statement "when the original defamatory statement was made in the course of an official public proceeding or contained in an official public record." Herron v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 108 Wash.2d 162, 179, 736 P.2d 249 (1987). The purpose of the fair report privilege "is to serve the public's interest 'in having information made available to it as to what occurs in official proceedings and public meetings.' " Herron, 108 Wash.2d at 179, 736 P.2d 249 (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 611 ). The fair report privilege extends to both civil and criminal judicial proceedings. Herron, 108 Wash.2d at 179, 736 P.2d 249"Because the filing of a pleading is a public and official act in the course of judicial proceedings, the fair reporting privilege attaches to pleadings even if the court has yet to action them." Clapp v. Olympic View Publ'g Co., 137 Wash. App. 470, 476, 154 P.3d 230 (2007). See also WASH. CONST. art. I, § 10 ("Justice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.").

¶ 14 The fair report privilege protects the reporting of official proceedings if (1) the report is attributable to an official proceeding and (2) the report is an accurate or a fair abridgement. Clapp, 137 Wash. App. at 477, 154 P.3d 230. See also Herron, 108 Wash.2d at 179, 736 P.2d 249 ; Mark, 96 Wash.2d at 487, 635 P.2d 1081 ; Alpine, 114 Wash. App. at 383, 57 P.3d 1178 ; (all quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 611 ).

2. Application to SKW's Webpages

¶ 15 McNamara contends first that SKW cannot invoke the fair report privilege because it only applies to members of the news media. We disagree.

¶ 16 Washington courts have not expressly decided whether the fair report privilege is applicable to parties other than traditional news media. However, as we discuss above, Washington has long recognized a strong public interest in having access to public proceedings, including a constitutional mandate for the open administration of justice. As such, neither the type of media nor entity republishing reports of official public *12proceedings is relevant to determining whether the fair report privilege applies. We hold that the fair report privilege applies to news media and other types of media, including websites, webpages, and blogs, reporting on official public proceedings, including judicial proceedings, so long as (1) the report is attributable to an official proceeding and (2) the report is an accurate or a fair abridgement of the official report.7

¶ 17 McNamara argues next that SKW may not invoke the fair report privilege because SKW's website and webpages are not an accurate or fair abridgment of plaintiff's complaint in the wrongful death action against McNamara. We disagree.

¶ 18 "For a report to be a fair abridgment of an official proceeding, surgical precision is not required so long as the report is substantially accurate and fair." Alpine, 114 Wash. App. at 386, 57 P.3d 1178. "In the summary judgment context, the plaintiff will not overcome the fair reporting privilege if the reviewing court determines as a matter of law that the challenged report is a fair abridgment." Alpine, 114 Wash. App. at 386, 57 P.3d 1178. We address each of the false statements alleged by McNamara in her complaint.

¶ 19 McNamara's complaint alleged that the statement "Interpol Warrant Issued" on the SKW webpage was false. While it is not precisely accurate that an "Interpol warrant" was issued, the statement on the website is a fair abridgment of the allegations in the complaint that "[s]ince Defendant's return to Washington, Belize authorities have issued a warrant for Defendant's arrest on the charge of murdering Mr. McNamara, Attachment 4 is Interpol's posting regarding Defendant's warrant for murder."8

¶ 20 McNamara's complaint next alleged that the statement "Ms. McNamara has been found guilty of Incest" on SKW's website is false. This allegation fails because the SKW webpages in the record do not state that McNamara was found guilty of incest.

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

Related

Law Office Of John Randolph, Pllc V. Ewu Media Llc
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2026
Kenneth Wren, et ux. v. Stanford and Sons, LLC
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2025
Siddharth Jha, V. Varisha Mahmood Khan, Et Ano
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2022
Bruce L. Davidson, M.d. v. Robb W. Glenny, M.d., Et Ano.
470 P.3d 549 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2020)
Emmanuel v. King County
W.D. Washington, 2020
Floyd And Margaret Scott, V Ally Bank Corp., Etal
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2020
Chen v. D'Amico
W.D. Washington, 2020
Futurewise v. City Of Ridgefield
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
429 P.3d 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnamara-v-koehler-washctapp-2018.