Wright v. Florida Power & Light Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wright v. Florida Power & Light Co.

559 So. 2d 1228, 17 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2040, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2167, 1990 WL 37373

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 3, 1990·No. Nos. 89-1610, 89-2031·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Homestead Newspapers, Inc., who was a defendant below, contends that the summary judgment entered in its favor by the trial court was proper because the newspaper articles in question were protected by the “opinion” privilege as well as by Florida’s common-law “fair comment” privilege. We disagree.

We hold, as a matter of law, that the comments of the newspaper articles in question constitute factual statements and not expressions of the newspaper’s opinion which otherwise might be protected as being privileged. Furthermore, we hold that the newspaper articles in question are not protected by Florida's common-law “fair comment” privilege due to the fact that the appellant, who was the plaintiff below, is not a public figure see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, [1229] 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), nor has he done anything to make himself “part of the passing scene”, see Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Ane, 458 So.2d 239 (Fla.1984); Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So.2d 823 (Fla.1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 951, 90 S.Ct. 1871, 26 L.Ed.2d 291 (1970).

Accordingly, as to appellee Homestead Newspapers, Inc., we reverse the summary judgment under review and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. '

As to the summary judgment entered in favor of Florida Power and Light Company, we find no error, and accordingly, we affirm that judgment.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Homestead Newspapers, Inc., who was a defendant below, contends that the summary judgment entered in its favor by the trial court was proper because the newspaper articles in question were protected by the “opinion” privilege as well as by Florida’s common-law “fair comment” privilege. We disagree.

We hold, as a matter of law, that the comments of the newspaper articles in question constitute factual statements and not expressions of the newspaper’s opinion which otherwise might be protected as being privileged. Furthermore, we hold that the newspaper articles in question are not protected by Florida's common-law “fair comment” privilege due to the fact that the appellant, who was the plaintiff below, is not a public figure see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, [1229] 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), nor has he done anything to make himself “part of the passing scene”, see Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Ane, 458 So.2d 239 (Fla.1984); Gibson v. Maloney, 231 So.2d 823 (Fla.1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 951, 90 S.Ct. 1871, 26 L.Ed.2d 291 (1970).

Accordingly, as to appellee Homestead Newspapers, Inc., we reverse the summary judgment under review and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. '

As to the summary judgment entered in favor of Florida Power and Light Company, we find no error, and accordingly, we affirm that judgment.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Wright v. Florida Power & Light Co., 559 So. 2d 1228, 17 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2040, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2167, 1990 WL 37373 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

559 So. 2d 1228 (Wright v. Florida Power & Light Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related