O'Brien v. Tribune Publishing Co.

499 P.2d 24, 7 Wash. App. 107, 1972 Wash. App. LEXIS 946
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedJune 15, 1972
Docket381-2
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 499 P.2d 24 (O'Brien v. Tribune Publishing Co.) 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
O'Brien v. Tribune Publishing Co., 499 P.2d 24, 7 Wash. App. 107, 1972 Wash. App. LEXIS 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

Armstrong, J.

This is an appeal from two consolidated libel suits in which summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants.

The appeal centers upon a determination of whether certain alleged defamatory statements made by defendants concerned an event of public or general interest, and if so, whether plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on the issue of malice. The ultimate question is whether, resolving all factual doubts against the nonmoving party in a summary judgment, a genuine issue of fact survived the pleadings, affidavits, documentary and depositional evidence.

• The plaintiff, Robert W. O’Brien, was the former administrative assistant to Congressman Floyd Hicks, and claims to have been the target of libelous statements published in *109 The Tacoma News Tribune, Puyallup Valley Tribune and Pierce County Herald at the time of the 1968 political campaign. In that campaign incumbent Congressman Hicks, was opposed by Anthony Chase, one of the defendants. The Tacoma News Tribune publication consisted of a political advertisement over the banner of “Democrats for Chase.” This ad contained a copy of an editorial which had appeared in the Pierce County Herald and Puyallup Valley Tribune — both papers operate under a single management and they are, in practical effect, one newspaper. Defendant Franich wrote the editorial. The advertisement is set forth as appendix A and the editorial is set forth as appendix B.

The alleged libelous matter complained of revolves around four major charges made against plaintiff: (1) he received a part-time salary of over $500 per month as a district aide while engaged in other part-time employment, and thereafter received nearly $20,000 per year as a full-time district aide to Congressman Hicks while engaged in campaign work; (2) reference was made to two lawsuits filed against plaintiff which alleged that he falsely represented himself as an attorney, when in fact he was not; (3) O’Brien had sought and obtained a continuance of the lawsuit until after the election to avoid embarrassing his employer — he contends the editorial implies he improperly influenced the court; (4) a letter used in a campaign 2 years before was again used in the editorial and political advertisement — the letter stated that O’Brien threatened a Mrs. Hughes with termination of a government contract because she and her husband removed a Hicks sign from their place of business and replaced it with a sign of Congressman Hicks’ opponent.

We find that items 1, 2 and 3 do not present genuine issues of material fact, but we find that the Hughes letter does present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it is a defamatory falsehood and as to whether the letter was published by the defendants Chase, Turner and The Tribune Publishing Company with “actual malice.”

*110 The record shows that O’Brien had worked for Hicks as his administrative assistant, later had worked only part-time as a district aide in Hicks’ district, but beginning early in 1968 had become a full-time district aide at an annual salary of between $18,600 and $19,353 per year. During that time he was working in Pierce and Kitsap counties, performing those many functions which a district aide to a congressman is expected to perform, including the maintenance of good public relations with an eye on the coming political campaign. Hicks was challenged by Chase and as a result battle lines were drawn for the political contest. Chase and one of his lieutenants, Richard Turner, also a defendant, were understandably seeking to find any flaw in Hicks’ conduct of his political office and they seized upon O’Brien as one of Hicks’ weaknesses. On several occasions they talked to defendant Frank Franich who wrote editorials for the Pierce County Herald. Chase gave Franich a brochure on his candidacy and photostatic copies of clippings relating to Congressman Hicks and O’Brien. At a later date Franich wrote an editorial which had Hicks for its principal target, but which, incidentally, discredited O’Brien. Chase and Turner then used this editorial in the political advertisement in The Tacoma News Tribune.

Defendants Turner and Chase denied any malice toward Mr. O’Brien and further denied any malice relating to the accumulation of materials transmitted to defendant Franich or The Tacoma News Tribune. Defendants Franich and The Tribune Publishing Company also specifically denied malice.

Defendants Turner and Chase have stated that they both felt, based upon investigation undertaken, that the content of the information contained in the editorial, and ultimately the political advertisement in its entirety, was true to the best of their knowledge.

On the basis of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686, 84 S. Ct. 710 (1964) the trial court concluded that plaintiff occupied a public figure status and that O’Brien had not presented a material issue of “actual malice” which would justify submitting the case to a jury.

*111 The New York Times case involved a libel suit by an Alabama public official against The New York Times publishers and several members of civil rights groups for the publishing of an editorial-type advertisement by The Times. The jury awarded plaintiff damages against all the defendants and the judgment on the verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Alabama on the grounds that the statements in the advertisement were libelous per se, false and not privileged, and that the evidence showed malice on the part of the newspaper. The defendants’ constitutional objections were rejected by the Alabama court on the ground that the first amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect libelous publications. The decision of the Alabama court was based upon the then existing majority rule relating to libel actions.

The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Supreme Court of Alabama on the basis that its holding infringed upon the safeguards provided by the First Amendment for freedoms of speech and press, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, the court promulgated the now famous New York Times rule:

The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official 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.

376 U.S. at 279-80.

In subsequent cases the court expanded the concept of “public officials” to “public figures” in the combined opinion of Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts and Associated Press v. Walker, 388 U.S. 130, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1094, 87 S. Ct. 1975 (1967).
The latest expression in the constitutional aspects of the evolving law of libel is contained in Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 29 L. Ed. 2d 296, 91 S. Ct. 1811 (1971).

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

Related

Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group Inc.
993 A.2d 778 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2010)
Momah v. Bharti
144 Wash. App. 731 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2008)
Clapp v. OLYMPIC VIEW PUB. CO., LLC.
154 P.3d 230 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2007)
Clapp v. Olympic View Publishing Co.
154 P.3d 230 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2007)
Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co.
852 N.E.2d 825 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2006)
Solaia Technology v. Specialty Publishing
Illinois Supreme Court, 2006
Alpine Industries Computers, Inc. v. Cowles Publishing Co.
57 P.3d 1178 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2002)
Alpine Industries v. Cowles Pub. Co.
57 P.3d 1178 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2002)
Herron v. Tribune Publishing Co.
736 P.2d 249 (Washington Supreme Court, 1987)
Mark v. Seattle Times
635 P.2d 1081 (Washington Supreme Court, 1981)
Newell v. Field Enterprises, Inc.
415 N.E.2d 434 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1980)
Mark v. King Broadcasting Co.
618 P.2d 512 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1980)
Craig v. Moore
48 Fla. Supp. 29 (Duval County Circuit Court, 1978)
O'BRIEN v. Franich
575 P.2d 258 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1978)
Exner v. American Medical Ass'n
529 P.2d 863 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1974)
Anderson v. New York Telephone Co.
42 A.D.2d 151 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1973)
Blakely v. Housing Authority
505 P.2d 151 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1973)
Chase v. Daily Record, Inc.
503 P.2d 1103 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
499 P.2d 24, 7 Wash. App. 107, 1972 Wash. App. LEXIS 946, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-tribune-publishing-co-washctapp-1972.