REL:
12/03/2010
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2090705
Benjamin L. L i t t l e v. C o n s o l i d a t e d P u b l i s h i n g Company and Megan N i c h o l s Appeal from Calhoun C i r c u i t (CV-09-900147)
Court
MOORE, J u d g e . Benjamin
L.
Little
appeals
e n t e r e d by t h e Calhoun C i r c u i t favor
from
Court
a
summary
("the t r i a l
judgment
court") i n
o f C o n s o l i d a t e d P u b l i s h i n g Company ("CPC") a n d Megan
Nichols.
We a f f i r m i n p a r t a n d r e v e r s e i n p a r t .
2090705 Factual Little,
a
and P r o c e d u r a l
Christian
minister
Background
and
an A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n ,
s e r v e s as a c o u n c i l m a n f o r t h e C i t y o f A n n i s t o n , a p o s i t i o n i n which
he has
early
2007, L i t t l e ,
White,
served since
he was
acting
on
addressing practices Anniston.
what of On
considered
human-resources
F e b r u a r y 10,
to
be
2007, L i t t l e
t h e two d i n e d and c o n v e r s e d f o r one a t the expense of the
Little city
drove
hall,
Jackson back
and
then drove
City
to
assist
procedures
in
new
After
The
i n d i c a t i n g her
human-resources
her
hours, dinner, at
next
the day,
willingness
policies
and
f o r the C i t y of A n n i s t o n .
Little members, b u t later,
developing
of
Uniontown,
t o two
dropped
to Anniston.
J a c k s o n s e n t h e r resume t o L i t t l e ,
City
w i t h h e r , where
of A n n i s t o n .
back
the
to
and a h a l f
t o Uniontown,
substandard
of
drove
Phillip
possibly
the
department
In
Jackson, a
about
p i c k e d up J a c k s o n , and t h e n d r o v e t o D e m o p o l i s
all
i n 2000.
contacted Yolanda
consultant,
Little
the
elected
the recommendation of
t h e n mayor o f U n i o n t o w n ,
human-resource-management
first
recommended they
were
however, the c i t y
Jackson initially council
2
to
the
"cool
other about
city-council i t . "
A
year
renewed i t s i n t e r e s t i n the
2090705 matter
and
Uniontown, council
Little,
after
meeting
again
with
a r r a n g e d f o r h e r and Mayor W h i t e
meeting
in April
2008.
At
that
Jackson
to attend a meeting,
in
Jackson informed the c o u n c i l of her q u a l i f i c a t i o n s White
related
the
success
of
Jackson's
efforts
Uniontown w i t h i t s human-resources problems, v o t e d 5-0
to hire
resources
practices
$2,500.
Jackson of
Jackson
which
and Mayor in
helping
the c i t y
council
the
City
of
Anniston
at
Little
a
cost
took
of
Jackson
to dinner i n Anniston.
thereafter
performed
an
audit
resources p r a c t i c e s of the C i t y of A n n i s t o n . meet
city-
t o p e r f o r m an a u d i t o f t h e human-
F o l l o w i n g the c o u n c i l meeting,
and Mayor W h i t e
in
personally
with
Little
during
the
of
the
human-
Jackson d i d not
auditing
process;
h o w e v e r , L i t t l e d i d t a l k w i t h J a c k s o n on t h e t e l e p h o n e s e v e r a l times.
After
Uniontown 20
t h e a u d i t was
completed,
and t a l k e d w i t h J a c k s o n a b o u t
minutes.
The
record
i n t e r a c t i o n between L i t t l e
does and
not
Spain
council.
A t a F e b r u a r y 18,
questioned
the
a l s o drove
to
the a u d i t f o r about indicate
any
other
Jackson.
I n November 2008, J o h n S p a i n was city
Little
2009, c i t y - c o u n c i l
u s e f u l n e s s of
3
e l e c t e d to the A n n i s t o n
the
audit
meeting,
conducted
by
2090705 J a c k s o n and
stated his
Nichols,
reporter
a
n e w s p a p e r owned and Little
i n t e n t i o n to for
The
Anniston
published
a f t e r the meeting.
i n v e s t i g a t e the
by
CPC,
Star,
matter.
which
interviewed
is
Spain
and
B a s e d on h e r n o t e s f r o m t h e m e e t i n g
and h e r i n t e r v i e w s , N i c h o l s w r o t e a s t o r y t h a t a p p e a r e d on f r o n t page o f The
a
Anniston
Star
on
F e b r u a r y 19,
the
2009, u n d e r
the h e a d l i n e :
" S p a i n w a n t s I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o HR a u d i t o r d e r e d
by
In
Little."
opinions Spain, and
had
of
that
certain
story, Nichols City
of
r e l a t e d some f a c t s
Anniston
officials,
and
including
t h a t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a u d i t had b e e n p o o r l y p e r f o r m e d y i e l d e d nothing
productive.
In a d d i t i o n , the
stated: "Spain a l s o s a i d there i s a buzz i n the c i t y t h a t L i t t l e had o r has a p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h J a c k s o n and t h a t ' s why he p u s h e d f o r h e r h i r i n g l a s t year. " ' I f t h i s i s not the case, i t s v e r y u n f a i r t o Councilman Little,' Spain said. 'If there is s u b s t a n c e t o i t , i t needs t o be d i s c l o s e d . ' " L i t t l e , who i s not m a r r i e d , i n v o l v e d p e r s o n a l l y with Jackson.
said
he
is
not
" ' I know a l o t o f p e o p l e , ' he s a i d . 'But I've n e v e r had a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h a t g i r l . And i f I did have a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h e r , t h a t w o u l d n ' t r e l a t e t o t h e c i t y anyway.'
4
story
2090705 "Several
attempts
t o reach
Jackson
this
week
failed." Nichols for
a
s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t
summary
interview with
judgment Spain,
i n which
understanding
interview
that
she s t a t e d
that,
i n her
" S p a i n made s t a t e m e n t s t o w h i c h he was
a t t r i b u t e d i n the a r t i c l e . " her
i n support of the motion
Nichols
s t a t e d t h a t i t had been
f r o m s t a t e m e n t s made b y S p a i n d u r i n g
"there
were
rumors
i n t h e community
C o u n c i l member L i t t l e may have b e e n d a t i n g a c o n s u l t a n t by t h e C i t y . "
that that hired
In her d e p o s i t i o n , Nichols c l a r i f i e d that Spain
had
a l s o i n d i c a t e d t o h e r t h a t t h e r e was a " b u z z " t h a t
had
b a s e d h i s d e c i s i o n t o " p u s h " f o r J a c k s o n ' s h i r i n g due t o
their and
rumored p e r s o n a l
her deposition
relationship.
testimony,
quoted Spain and L i t t l e the
Nichols
accurately
e d i t o r o f The A n n i s t o n
Little
In both her a f f i d a v i t attested that
i n the story.
Star, t e s t i f i e d
she had
Bob
Davis,
i n h i s deposition
t h a t he h a d c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s t o r y b y n o t i n g t h a t L i t t l e was not
a
married
man,
i n order
to give
the story
"greater
context." Nichols the but,
story
stated
i n her a f f i d a v i t
out of i l l
she s t a t e d ,
will,
spite,
s h e was s i m p l y 5
that
she d i d n o t w r i t e
or malice
toward
anyone,
r e p o r t i n g t h e words o f S p a i n
2090705 as
told
t o h e r as p a r t
o f h e r j o b as a r e p o r t e r .
Nichols
f u r t h e r a t t e s t e d i n h e r a f f i d a v i t t h a t she h a d no c o n c e r n s o r doubts
about the accuracy
of the information
quoted
i n the
story.
I n h e r d e p o s i t i o n , h o w e v e r , N i c h o l s c l a r i f i e d t h a t she
had n o t i n v e s t i g a t e d w h e t h e r , i n f a c t , a rumor was c i r c u l a t i n g a b o u t L i t t l e a n d J a c k s o n ; she c o u l d v e r i f y o n l y t h a t S p a i n h a d asserted alleged
as much. rumor,
As f o r c h e c k i n g t h e f a c t u a l b a s i s
Nichols
testified
that
of the
she h a d i n q u i r e d o f
L i t t l e and had a t t e m p t e d t o c o n t a c t J a c k s o n .
Although
Nichols
and D a v i s b o t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y h a d no r e a s o n t o d o u b t t h e v e r a c i t y o f L i t t l e ' s d e n i a l , and a l t h o u g h N i c h o l s had n o t been able
to reach
anyway.
Jackson,
Furthermore,
Nichols despite
decided the fact
to run the that
Harry
story Brandt
A y e r s , t h e p u b l i s h e r o f The A n n i s t o n S t a r , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he knew S p a i n d i d n o t l i k e policy
Little
of double-checking
and t h a t t h e newspaper had a
particularly
divisive
remarks,
no
e d i t o r o r o t h e r p e r s o n employed by t h e newspaper had a t t e m p t e d to a s c e r t a i n the f a c t u a l b a s i s of Spain's
statements.
On F e b r u a r y 20, 2009, The A n n i s t o n S t a r r a n an e d i t o r i a l a u t h o r e d b y D a v i s , e n t i t l e d : "Ben's g r e a t e s t h i t s : A l i t a n y o f crumbling plans."
In that e d i t o r i a l ,
6
Davis
stated:
2090705 "Most r e c e n t l y we've l e a r n e d more d e t a i l s a b o u t C o u n c i l m a n Ben L i t t l e ' s s w e e t h e a r t HR a u d i t d e a l . At L i t t l e ' s urging, Anniston p a i d Yolanda Jackson of Uniontown $2,500 t o examine the c i t y ' s human resources practices. Working f o r what city o f f i c i a l s s a y i s a few h o u r s a n d s h e c l a i m s was s e v e r a l days, Jackson produced a r e p o r t t h a t i s v i r t u a l l y useless. N o t one r e c o m m e n d a t i o n h a s b e e n implemented." Davis
then
recounted
several
other
endeavors
Little
had
u n d e r t a k e n w h i l e he was a c o u n c i l m a n t h a t D a v i s c o n s i d e r e d t o have b e e n u n s u c c e s s f u l . On F e b r u a r y 24, 2009, c o u n s e l f o r L i t t l e to
Ayers,
statements both
requesting
t h e newspaper
retract
c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s t o r y and t h e e n t i r e
of which
1
that
wrote a l e t t e r
Section
Little
c o n s i d e r e d t o be f a l s e
certain
editorial,
and m a l i c i o u s .
6-5-186, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s :
II
V i n d i c t i v e o r p u n i t i v e damages s h a l l n o t be r e c o v e r e d i n a n y a c t i o n f o r l i b e l on a c c o u n t o f a n y p u b l i c a t i o n u n l e s s (1) i t s h a l l be p r o v e d t h a t t h e p u b l i c a t i o n was made b y t h e d e f e n d a n t w i t h knowledge that t h e m a t t e r p u b l i s h e d was f a l s e , or with r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d o f w h e t h e r i t was f a l s e o r n o t , and (2) i t s h a l l be p r o v e d t h a t f i v e days b e f o r e t h e commencement o f t h e a c t i o n t h e p l a i n t i f f s h a l l have made w r i t t e n demand upon t h e d e f e n d a n t f o r a p u b l i c r e t r a c t i o n o f t h e charge o r m a t t e r p u b l i s h e d ; and t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a l l have f a i l e d or refused t o p u b l i s h w i t h i n f i v e d a y s , i n as p r o m i n e n t a n d p u b l i c a p l a c e o r manner as t h e c h a r g e o r m a t t e r p u b l i s h e d o c c u p i e d , a f u l l and f a i r r e t r a c t i o n o f such charge or matter." 7
1
2090705 S p e c i f i c a l l y , L i t t l e ' s counsel ordered
the audit
Anniston
city
Little's false letter
council
counsel
gossip
or hired
also
provided
a s "a w e l l
had
maintained t h a t L i t t l e had not Jackson voted
asserted by
Spain,
but, rather,
5-0
that
to
retain
the story
who
was
that
the
Jackson.
had repeated
described
known o p p o n e n t o f Mr. L i t t l e
i n the
on t h e c i t y
c o u n c i l , " t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t L i t t l e had "pushed" f o r J a c k s o n ' s hiring
because
Jackson.
Little
Little's
characterization
of
had
a
counsel the
personal further
audit
in
relationship
with
objected
the
the
to
editorial
as
a
" s w e e t h e a r t " d e a l t h a t L i t t l e h a d " u r g e d " t h e c o u n c i l t o make. On F e b r u a r y retraction article two
26, 2009, L i t t l e ' s
t o counsel
entitled
f o r CPC.
counsel
sent
a proposed
On F e b r u a r y 27, 2009, i n an
" F o r t h e R e c o r d s " t h a t was p r i n t e d on page
o f t h a t d a y ' s e d i t i o n o f The A n n i s t o n
Star, the f o l l o w i n g
appeared: "A h e a d l i n e f o r a F e b . 19 a r t i c l e i n The Anniston Star mischaracterized Anniston City C o u n c i l m a n Ben L i t t l e ' s r o l e i n h i r i n g a c o n t r a c t o r t o a u d i t t h e c i t y ' s human r e s o u r c e s p r a c t i c e s . I n f a c t , t h e c o u n c i l as a w h o l e o r d e r e d t h e a u d i t . The Star apologizes t o Councilman L i t t l e f o r t h i s e r r o r .
L i t t l e a s s e r t s t h a t he a s k e d f o r t h e r e t r a c t i o n i n o r d e r comply w i t h t h e s t a t u t e . 8
to
2090705 "Furthermore, the a r t i c l e quoted another c i t y councilman c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f rumors c i r c u l a t i n g t h a t L i t t l e h a d some t y p e o f p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t o r h i r e d by t h e e n t i r e council. I n c o n t e x t , i t was c l e a r t h a t t h e p e r s o n q u o t e d was n o t s t a t i n g w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e rumors were t r u e a n d t h e p e r s o n was e x p r e s s l y q u o t e d as saying that i f t h e rumors were u n t r u e , those s p r e a d i n g t h e r u m o r s w o u l d be u n f a i r t o b o t h L i t t l e and t h e c o n t r a c t o r . The A n n i s t o n S t a r w i s h e s t o make a b s o l u t e l y c l e a r t h a t i t h a s n o t a n d i s n o t a l l e g i n g t h a t such a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s or t h a t s u c h r u m o r s have a f a c t u a l b a s i s . In f a c t , L i t t l e has v e h e m e n t l y d e n i e d s u c h a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s . " Later
that
day,
Little's
objecting
because
he
foregoing
article
before
different
wording
newspaper. Anniston On
counsel
had
to
not
reviewed
i t was
appear
wrote
CPC's or
approved
p u b l i s h e d and
on
the
front
counsel, the
demanding
page
of the
No f u r t h e r c o r r e c t i o n a p p e a r e d i n t h e p a g e s o f The
Star. March
24, 2009,
another
editorial
appeared
i n The
A n n i s t o n S t a r i n w h i c h i t was r e c o u n t e d t h a t some i n d i v i d u a l s had
taken
Little
copies of past
and
margins."
had That
"penned
editorials threats
editorial
to
quoted
that
were
Little's Little
as
critical life
of
i n the
blaming
the
e d i t o r i a l b o a r d o f The A n n i s t o n S t a r f o r p r o v o k i n g t h e d e a t h t h r e a t s t h r o u g h i t s " v i c i o u s and i n c o r r e c t " e d i t o r i a l s . editorial
then
stated: 9
That
2090705 " L i t t l e h a s s o f a r p r o v e n no m a j o r i n a c c u r a c i e s i n the e d i t o r i a l s . I n f a c t , the paper d i d run a minor c o r r e c t i o n a n d an a p o l o g y on a news s t o r y , a f t e r t h e m i s t a k e was b r o u g h t t o t h e p a p e r ' s a t t e n t i o n . B u t L i t t l e h a s p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e o f 'vviiccii oo uu ss nn ee ss ss '' o or r ' i n c o r r e c t n e s s ' t o t h e n e w s p a p e r , e v e n t h o u g h he has been i n v i t e d t o . " That
editorial
space
ended w i t h
an i n v i t a t i o n
for Little
i n t h e newspaper f o r any r e b u t t a l .
March
27,
2009,
Little's
counsel
c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the e a r l i e r a "minor
t o use
In a l e t t e r objected
"For the Records"
dated
to
the
a r t i c l e as
c o r r e c t i o n " and asked f o r a n o t h e r r e t r a c t i o n ,
which
r e q u e s t was n o t g r a n t e d . L i t t l e f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t CPC a n d N i c h o l s , as w e l l as s e v e r a l f i c t i t i o u s l y named d e f e n d a n t s , on May 18, 2009. that
complaint,
maliciously Little
Little
published false
i n the February
editorial
alleged
that
19
had n o t been
that
CPC
and defamatory story
and
effectively
and N i c h o l s had statements
about
i n the February retracted.
20
Little
further asserted: " [ L i t t l e ] a v e r s t h a t [CPC] h a s waged a l o n g campaign t o l i b e l and v i l i f y L i t t l e i n t h e A n n i s t o n community c a l l i n g h i m names s u c h as 'a c r a n k . ' The o b j e c t o f t h e c a m p a i g n was r a c i a l i n n a t u r e a n d was i n t e n d e d t o make [ L i t t l e ] an o b j e c t o f s c o r n a n d h a t r e d i n t h e A n n i s t o n , A l a b a m a community b e c a u s e o f [Little's] efforts to a i d the African-American community t o have a f a i r v o i c e i n A n n i s t o n community 10
In
2090705 a f f a i r s , even i f t h a t v o i c e i s not p l e a s i n g t o the A n n i s t o n w h i t e community. The e f f e c t o f t h e c a m p a i g n o f [CPC] has b e e n t o c r e a t e an a t m o s p h e r e o f h a t r e d o f L i t t l e i n w h i c h [CPC's] v i e w s o f t h e g o o d o f t h e community was b e l i e v e d t o r e q u i r e t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f L i t t l e from the a f f a i r s of the C i t y of A n n i s t o n . " Little
averred
t h a t , as
vilification" margin
of
a direct
c o m m i t t e d by CPC,
The
Anniston
Star
result
and
punitive CPC
the
tort
of
editorials
outrage
had
Little
and
the in
asserted claims
of
compensatory
and
damages. and N i c h o l s f i l e d
s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. and
Nichols
September
4,
an a n s w e r and
a counterclaim
also requested
motion Rule
56,
for
a
Ala.
R.
the
R u l e 5 6 ( f ) , A l a . R. discovery,
summary-judgment
Little
motion.
C i v . P. filed The
h e a r d a r g u m e n t s on t h e m o t i o n on F e b r u a r y 22, 2010. court entered
Little
to
that
the
P.
on
t o p o s t p o n e a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n i n o r d e r See
to
Civ.
judgment
he
of
in opposition
summary
Little,
motion, but
much to
See
a brief
complete d i s c o v e r y . completing
a
under
See ยง 12-19-270 e t
A f t e r t a k i n g the d e p o s i t i o n of
filed
2009.
responded w i t h
response
of
been p l a c e d
sought
the Alabama L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t .
CPC
"campaign
death t h r e a t s w r i t t e n i n
p u b l i c places throughout Anniston. libel
of the
a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f CPC 11
After
a
second
trial
court
The
trial
and
Nichols
2090705 as
to
both
claims
set
t i m e l y appealed to the
out
in
the
complaint.
Little
Supreme C o u r t o f A l a b a m a ; t h a t
then court
t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal to t h i s c o u r t , pursuant to ยง 12-2-7(6), Ala.
Code 1 9 7 5 .
2
Issues Little the
maintains
Appeal
t h a t the
summary-judgment
outrage claims.
on
motion
on
trial
court
erred i n
granting
his
libel
and
tort-of-
the
L i t t l e c o n t e n d s t h a t he p r e s e n t e d
sufficient
e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t N i c h o l s and CPC m a l i c i o u s l y p u b l i s h e d a
false
and
d e f a m a t o r y rumor a b o u t him
so
t h a t they are
not
p r o t e c t e d f r o m an a c t i o n f o r damages by t h e F i r s t Amendment t o the
United
Sullivan,
376
States U.S.
Constitution. 254
(1964).
See
Little
New
York
Times
a l s o contends t h a t
v. he
produced s u b s t a n t i a l evidence
i n d i c a t i n g that
CPC
committed
acts
publishing racially
motivated
of
o u t r a g e o u s c o n d u c t by
T h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t r u l e on t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m f i l e d by CPC and N i c h o l s ; h o w e v e r , " [ o ] u r c a s e l a w has ... clarified t h a t the f a i l u r e of a t r i a l c o u r t to s p e c i f i c a l l y reserve j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r an [Alabama L i t i g a t i o n A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ] c l a i m i n a summary-judgment o r d e r i m p l i e d l y d i s p o s e s o f t h e c l a i m and r e n d e r s t h e summary j u d g m e n t f i n a l . See G o n z a l e z , LLC v. D i V i n c e n t i , 844 So. 2d 1196, 1201 ( A l a . 2002) . A c c o r d i n g l y , we h o l d t h a t t h e summary j u d g m e n t i s a f i n a l j u d g m e n t t h a t w i l l s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . " McGough v. G & A, I n c . , 999 So. 2d 898, 903 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . 2
12
2090705 attacks
on L i t t l e
that
c a u s e d h i m t o be s u b j e c t e d
to death
t h r e a t s and t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g tort-of-outrage
c l a i m was subsumed i n h i s l i b e l
that h i s
claim.
Analysis A. In
order
The L i b e l
for a public
figure,
P r e s s R e g i s t e r , I n c . v. F a u l k n e r , to
recover
public
containing
prove
special harm
So.
Nichols
2d
prove to
a false
figure,
special 904
must
published
public
that
Little,
written
and defamatory
which i s e i t h e r harm
(per quod). 221,
225
or
Mobile
for libel,
or
( A l a . 2004).
that
actual material
concerning
the
without having to
actionable
See Ex p a r t e
with
printed
statement
actionable
( p e r se)
see
372 So. 2d 1282 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ,
the defendant,
another
upon
proof
Crawford Broad.
In t h i s
case,
CPC
of Co., and
moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e
s t a t e m e n t s upon w h i c h L i t t l e not
like
c o m p e n s a t o r y o r p u n i t i v e damages
figure
malice,
Claim
false
or defamatory,
predicated
that
his libel
c l a i m were
they enjoy q u a l i f i e d
immunity
f r o m l i a b i l i t y f o r p u b l i s h i n g t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s , and t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s were n o t p u b l i s h e d w i t h a c t u a l m a l i c e . Little
challenges
e a c h o f t h o s e g r o u n d s as b e i n g
13
On
appeal,
insufficient,
2090705 either
f a c t u a l l y or l e g a l l y ,
entered
by
the
trial
his
summary j u d g m e n t
court.
1. In
to support the
The
complaint,
"Truth"
Little
Argument
alleged
that
CPC
and
Nichols
l i b e l e d him i n t h e F e b r u a r y 19, 2009, s t o r y by s t a t i n g : also s a i d there
i s a buzz i n the
c i t y t h a t L i t t l e had
a personal
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h J a c k s o n and
pushed her
f o r h i r i n g l a s t year."
asserts
that
editorial
CPC
and
published
Nichols on
"Spain
Little
t h a t i s why
20,
has
[Little]
further essentially
r e i t e r a t e d those
February
or
2009,
facts in
i n which
the
Davis,
a f t e r r e f e r r i n g t o " L i t t l e ' s s w e e t h e a r t HR a u d i t d e a l , " w r o t e : "At
Little's
urging,
Uniontown
$2,500
practices."
3
CPC
to
examine
and
judgment m o t i o n t h a t were
Anniston the
Nichols
a l l the
paid
Yolanda
city's
asserted
Jackson
human in
their
allegedly offensive
"substantially true."
See
1
Alabama
of
resources summarystatements
Pattern
Jury
L i t t l e a r g u a b l y c l a i m e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t he had a l s o b e e n d e f a m e d by o t h e r s t a t e m e n t s c o n t a i n e d i n e d i t o r i a l s p u b l i s h e d i n The A n n i s t o n S t a r ; h o w e v e r , on a p p e a l , Little does n o t a r g u e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t as t o any l i b e l c l a i m b a s e d on t h o s e o t h e r s t a t e m e n t s . Hence, we do n o t a d d r e s s t h o s e c l a i m s on a p p e a l . See R o g e r s & W i l l a r d , I n c . v. Harwood, 999 So. 2d 912, 923 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ("This c o u r t w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r on a p p e a l i s s u e s t h a t a r e n o t p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d and a r g u e d i n b r i e f . " ) . 3
14
2090705 Instructions:
C i v i l 23.04 (2d ed. Supp. 2009) ("In
w h e t h e r t h e s t a t e m e n t was whether
the
accurate,
but
accurate the
t r u e o r f a l s e , you must n o t
was
absolutely
and
in
a l l
r a t h e r w h e t h e r t h e s t a t e m e n t was
and a c c u r a t e
respects
substantially
i n a l l material respects with regard
had
and N i c h o l s i n i t i a l l y a r g u e t h a t L i t t l e a d m i t t e d a personal
however,
that
relationship
Little
did
with
not
relationship
with
existence
such a r e l a t i o n s h i p
of
Jackson.
and
in his
that
had
n e v e r even h e a r d
he
Jackson.
admit
Little
Nichols
deposition
to
any
actually
to
L i t t l e met
the
both i n h i s interview
with
Little
Jackson before
with Jackson s e v e r a l times,
over the
Nichols
L i t t l e and business
did
telephone not
present
on
four or any
testified
Mayor
dined with Jackson
five
evidence
on
and t a l k e d
occasions.
CPC
indicating
that
u l t i m a t e l y engaged.
c e r t a i n l y does n o t i n d i c a t e t h a t L i t t l e e n g a g e d i n a
15
White
Thereafter,
Jackson d i s c u s s e d a n y t h i n g other than the
f o r w h i c h J a c k s o n was
clear,
personal
two o c c a s i o n s , once w i t h Mayor W h i t e i n a t t e n d a n c e , w i t h her
that
denied
testimony. of
It is
recommended h e r as a h u m a n - r e s o u r c e s c o n s u l t a n t .
and
consider
plaintiff."). CPC
he
statement
determining
official
The
record
"personal
2090705 relationship" Jackson.
as
opposed
Hence, we
admitted
to
a
a
business
r e j e c t the
personal
relationship
f a c t u a l argument t h a t
relationship, either
impliedly,
and
p r o d u c e any
evidence i n d i c a t i n g that L i t t l e
in
we
to
conclude
that
f a c t , engage i n a p e r s o n a l CPC
and
headline
Nichols
to the
resources
audit.
CPC
19
and
that
Little
Little
expressly
Nichols and
did
"pushed" or
Jackson
did
not,
s t o r y a l l e g e d , order
as
the
relationship.
and
services. contrary. that L i t t l e
on
the
did
and
basis
perceived
CPC
and
need
Nichols
human-
that
he
for
presented
c o u n c i l to alleged had
Jackson's no
Little
personal
recommended with
Mayor
consulting
evidence
to
the shows
recommend t h a t J a c k s o n p e r f o r m t h e
audit
Little's
evidence i n the
hire
record
the f o r e g o i n g ,
not p r e s e n t
city
of h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n s
Thus, t h e u n d i s p u t e d d i d not
the
Jackson's
testified
the
b e c a u s e o f h i s and Despite
exhorted
Little
Little
Jackson s o l e l y White
of
the
and N i c h o l s a l s o d i d n o t a r g u e i n t h e i r
otherwise
because
not
kind.
summary-judgment m o t i o n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e showed t h a t had
or
Jackson d i d ,
r e l a t i o n s h i p o f any
admitted
February
CPC
with
alleged personal r e l a t i o n s h i p . CPC
and N i c h o l s a r g u e t h a t
any e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y
16
Little
disseminated
2090705 a falsehood. in
B a s i c a l l y , CPC a n d N i c h o l s m a i n t a i n ,
the February
Records" that
article,
Little
26
"correction"
that
and Jackson
printed
as a s s e r t e d
i n the "For the
they d i d not p r i n t a s t o r y
stating
a c t u a l l y had engaged i n a
personal
r e l a t i o n s h i p o r t h a t , b a s e d on t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p , L i t t l e h a d , in
fact,
pushed
They c o n t e n d t h a t that
Spain
f o r Jackson
they published
had s a i d
that
there
c i r c u l a t i n g around Anniston. accurately
quoted
t o be r e t a i n e d
Spain,
a story that
f o r the audit. only
was a rumor t o t h a t
effect
They c o n t e n d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e y
along
with
Little's
denial
of the
the events o c c u r r i n g
during
rumor, t h e y t r u t h f u l l y
reported
and
18 c i t y - c o u n c i l m e e t i n g .
a f t e r the February
reported
4
The
trial
L i t t l e t a k e s i s s u e w i t h t h a t argument. L i t t l e contends t h a t , i n h e r a f f i d a v i t , N i c h o l s s t a t e d o n l y t h a t Spain had t o l d h e r t h a t he h a d h e a r d a rumor t h a t L i t t l e was o r h a d b e e n i n v o l v e d p e r s o n a l l y with Jackson, but that, l a t e r , i n her d e p o s i t i o n , N i c h o l s added t h a t S p a i n had a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e rumor a c c u s e d L i t t l e o f p u s h i n g f o r t h e a u d i t due t o t h a t personal relationship. We d i s a g r e e . In her a f f i d a v i t , Nichols stated generally that S p a i n h a d made a l l t h e s t a t e m e n t s t h a t she had a t t r i b u t e d t o h i m i n t h e s t o r y , w h i c h w o u l d i n c l u d e t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t i t was r u m o r e d t h a t L i t t l e had pushed f o r t h e a u d i t due t o h i s a l l e g e d personal r e l a t i o n s h i p with Jackson. In her a f f i d a v i t , Nichols d i d not a d d r e s s t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a l l e g a t i o n made b y S p a i n f u r t h e r , b u t t h e f a c t t h a t s h e d i d n o t f u r t h e r d i s c u s s t h e a l l e g a t i o n does n o t r e n d e r h e r l a t e r , more s p e c i f i c , d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y inconsistent with her a f f i d a v i t . Hence, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e record contains e s s e n t i a l l y undisputed evidence i n d i c a t i n g 4
17
2090705 court
noted
Little
h a d f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e r e was n o t a rumor f l o a t i n g
around
Anniston
Nichols liable
that,
argue
as d e s c r i b e d b y S p a i n
that,
f o r merely
That
regardless of the f a l s i t y
without
such
circulating
argument has l o n g been
to Nichols.
evidence,
Spain's
o f t h e rumor,
they
CPC a n d cannot
be
statements.
rejected
in libel
actions
a g a i n s t a newspaper p u b l i s h e r . "The f a c t t h a t t h e p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e s c a n d a l o u s m a t t e r p u r p o r t s t o be b a s e d on rumor i s no d e f e n s e . P u b l i c a t i o n of l i b e l o u s matter, although p u r p o r t i n g t o be s p o k e n b y a t h i r d p e r s o n , does n o t p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i s h e r , who i s l i a b l e f o r what he p u b l i s h e s . S t e p h e n s v. C o m m e r c i a l News Co., 164 I l l . App. 6 [ ( 1 9 1 1 ) ] ; C o o p e r v . L a w r e n c e , 204 I l l . App. 261-270 [ 1 9 1 7 ) ] ; O ' M a l l e y v. I l l i n o i s P u b l i s h i n g & P r i n t i n g Co., 194 I l l . App. 544 [ ( 1 9 1 5 ) ] . V e r y p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s p o i n t i s t h e comment i n N e w e l l on S l a n d e r a n d L i b e l , 4 t h E d . , ยง 300. 'A man c a n n o t s a y t h e r e i s a s t o r y i n c i r c u l a t i o n t h a t A. p o i s o n e d h i s w i f e o r B. p i c k s C.'s p o c k e t i n t h e o m n i b u s , o r t h a t D. h a s c o m m i t t e d a d u l t e r y , a n d r e l a t e t h e s t o r y , a n d when c a l l e d upon t o a n s w e r s a y : " T h e r e was s u c h a s t o r y i n c i r c u l a t i o n ; I b u t r e p e a t e d what I h e a r d , a n d h a d no d e s i g n t o c i r c u l a t e i t o r c o n f i r m i t " ; a n d f o r two v e r y p l a i n r e a s o n s : (1) The r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e s t o r y must i n t h e n a t u r e o f t h i n g s g i v e i t c u r r e n c y ; and (2) t h e r e p e t i t i o n w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f d i s b e l i e f w i l l c o n f i r m i t . The d a n g e r - - a n o b v i o u s o n e - - i s t h a t b a d men may g i v e c u r r e n c y t o s l a n d e r o u s r e p o r t s , a n d t h e n f i n d i n t h a t c u r r e n c y t h e i r own
that, i n the story, N i c h o l s simply reproduced made b y S p a i n . 18
the statements
2090705 protection from repetition.'"
the
Cobbs v. C h i c a g o D e f e n d e r , 325
(1941).
App.
633,
just 308
consequences
I l l . App.
55,
of
31 N.E.2d
See a l s o D a v i s v. Macon T e l . P u b l ' g . Co.,
639-40, 92 S.E.2d 619,
625
(1956)
a
("The
323,
93
fact
Ga. that
the
c h a r g e s made were b a s e d upon h e a r s a y i n no manner r e l i e v e s
the
d e f e n d a n t o f l i a b i l i t y . C h a r g e s b a s e d upon h e a r s a y a r e t h e
e q u i v a l e n t i n law t o d i r e c t c h a r g e s . " ) . In
322
(R.I.
a local
real-
scolded
local
r e s i d e n t s f o r s p r e a d i n g a rumor t h a t t h e d e v e l o p e r h a d
caused
1985),
M a r t i n v. W i l s o n P u b l i s h i n g
a n e w s p a p e r p u b l i s h e d an a r t i c l e
estate
or The
Co.,
developer
in
which
the
497
A.2d
about
newspaper
p r o f i t e d f r o m a r a s h o f a r s o n s i n a r e a s he was d e v e l o p i n g . d e v e l o p e r sued the newspaper p u b l i s h e r a r g u i n g t h a t "the newspaper e s s e n t i a l l y r e p o r t e d the e x i s t e n c e ... o f f a l s e , d e f a m a t o r y rumors c i r c u l a t i n g a b o u t town c o n n e c t i n g [ t h e d e v e l o p e r ] w i t h a r a s h o f incendiary fires, despite the fact that the n e w s p a p e r h a d no b e l i e f i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g t r u t h o f such rumors."
497 A.2d a t 325. burden
was
existed.
on
The l o w e r c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e j u r y t h a t t h e the
developer
to prove
"In essence, the t r i a l
that
no
such
rumors
j u s t i c e r u l e d as a m a t t e r o f
l a w t h a t i f s u c h rumors were c u r r e n t a t o r b e f o r e t h e t i m e o f
19
2090705 publication,
the
newspaper c o u l d
impunity."
497
A.2d
Island
disagreed
with
at
327.
that
r e p u b l i s h such rumors The
Supreme
p r o p o s i t i o n of
Court law.
with
of
Rhode
The
court
stated: " I t has l o n g b e e n r e c o g n i z e d i n r e s p e c t t o t h e l a w o f d e f a m a t i o n t h a t one who r e p u b l i s h e s l i b e l o u s or slanderous m a t e r i a l i s s u b j e c t to l i a b i l i t y j u s t as i f he h a d p u b l i s h e d i t o r i g i n a l l y . C i a n c i v. New Times P u b l i s h i n g Co., 639 F.2d 54, 60-61 (2d C i r . 198 0 ) ; M e t c a l f v. The Times P u b l i s h i n g Co., 2 0 R . I . 674, 678, 40 A. 864, 865 (1898); F o l w e l l v. P r o v i d e n c e J o u r n a l Co., 19 R . I . 551, 553-54, 37 A. 6, 6 ( 1 8 9 6 ) ; R i c e v. C o t t r e l , 5 R . I . 340, 342 ( 1 8 5 8 ) ; 3 R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) T o r t s ยง 578 (1977); P r o s s e r and K e e t o n , T o r t s ยง 113 a t 799 ( 5 t h ed. 1984). "A g o o d s t a t e m e n t o f t h i s r u l e i s s e t f o r t h i n O l i n g e r v. A m e r i c a n S a v i n g s and L o a n A s s o c i a t i o n , 409 F.2d 142, 144 (D.C. C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) : "'The l a w a f f o r d s no p r o t e c t i o n t o t h o s e who couch t h e i r libel i n the form of r e p o r t s o r r e p e t i t i o n . ... [T]he r e p e a t e r c a n n o t d e f e n d on t h e g r o u n d o f t r u t h s i m p l y by p r o v i n g t h a t t h e s o u r c e named d i d , i n f a c t , u t t e r the statement.' "The r e p u b l i c a t i o n r u l e a p p l i e s t o t h e p r e s s does t o o t h e r s . C i a n c i , 639 F.2d a t 61.
as i t
"
" C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e a p p r o p r i a t e i n q u i r y t o be submitted t o the t r i e r s of f a c t i n the i n s t a n t case was n o t w h e t h e r s u c h rumors e x i s t e d b u t w h e t h e r t h e r u m o r s were b a s e d upon f a c t o r w h e t h e r t h e y were f a l s e . ... " 20
2090705 497 A . 2 d a t 327. Thus, e v e n i n a c a s e i n w h i c h t h e n e w s p a p e r d e c r i e d t h e rumor, i t c o u l d n o t a v o i d l i a b i l i t y t h a t i t was m e r e l y r e p o r t i n g i t s e x i s t e n c e . v.
J o u r n a l Newspaper
(imposing
liability
included
information
Restatement
See a l s o B i s h o p
Co., 168 Mass. 327, 47 N.E. 119 (1897) for libel
on p u b l i s h e r
c o n t r a d i c t i n g rumor
(Second) o f T o r t s
A l a b a m a c a s e s on p o i n t , a n d o u r r e s e a r c h
even
though i t
i n story);
ยง 548 comment e
The p a r t i e s h a v e n o t d i r e c t e d t h i s
definitive
on t h e b a s i s
court
accord
(1976).
5
t o any b i n d i n g
has n o t y i e l d e d any
s t a t e m e n t o f A l a b a m a l a w on t h e i s s u e .
However,
A l a b a m a c o u r t s g e n e r a l l y a r e r e q u i r e d t o f o l l o w t h e common l a w in
making d e c i s i o n s .
hold, law
ยง 1-3-1,
A l a . Code
consistent with the foregoing
of l i b e l ,
that
1975.
Hence,
we
s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e common
a newspaper r e p o r t e r
or p u b l i s h e r cannot
Several other a u t h o r i t i e s have r e a c h e d t h e same o r similar conclusions. See Dun & B r a d s t r e e t , I n c . v. R o b i n s o n , 233 A r k . 168, 172, 345 S.W.2d 34, 37 (1961) ( d e f e n d a n t must p r o v e t r u t h o f s u b s t a n c e o f rumor e v e n t h o u g h r e p o r t i n c l u d e d d i s c l a i m e r " i t i s c u r r e n t l y r e p o r t e d " ) ; Hope v . H e a r s t C o n s o l . P u b l ' n s , I n c . , 294 F.2d 6 8 1 , 682 (2d C i r . 1961) ( u p h o l d i n g j u r y a w a r d i n l i b e l s u i t b a s e d on g o s s i p - c o l u m n i t e m t h a t began "Palm Beach i s b u z z i n g w i t h t h e s t o r y " ) ; and T h a c k r e y v. P a t t e r s o n , 157 F . 2 d 614, 614 n.1 (D.C. C i r . 1946) (reversing d i s m i s s a l of complaint in libel s u i t b a s e d on a r t i c l e r e p o r t i n g " c o n j e c t u r e s " and "saucy l i t t l e rumors" about p l a i n t i f f s ) . 5
21
2090705 avoid
liability
for
statement
on
the
publisher
accurately
newspaper
story
publishing
ground
that
quoted
clearly
a
false
the
the
and
newspaper
rumormonger,
identified
the
defamatory reporter even
or
i f the
statement
as
an
u n v e r i f i e d r e p o r t and e v e n i f t h e n e w s p a p e r s t o r y c o n t a i n s
a
d e n i a l o f t h e rumor by i t s s u b j e c t .
See C o n n a u g h t o n v. H a r t e
Hanks Commc'ns, I n c . , 842
837 n.6
aff'd,
491
U.S.
publication absolve
of
657 a
825,
(1989)
denial
by
("[I]t the
(D.C.
is
defamed
a defendant from l i a b i l i t y
reckless falsehoods.'" 90, 133
F.2d
(6th C i r . 1988), clear
that
subject
does
f o r p u b l i s h i n g knowing
( q u o t i n g T a v o u l a r e a s v. P i r o , 759
The
"Defamatory
Meaning"
or F.2d
Argument
CPC and N i c h o l s a r g u e n e x t t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t had a " p e r s o n a l of
not
C i r . 1985))).
2.
capable
'mere
r e l a t i o n s h i p " with
defamatory
meaning.
Jackson i s not
"Generally,
any
Little
reasonably false
and
m a l i c i o u s p u b l i c a t i o n , when e x p r e s s e d i n p r i n t i n g o r w r i t i n g , o r by s i g n s o r p i c t u r e s , i s a l i b e l punishable
by i n d i c t m e n t [ ]
into p u b l i c hatred,
[ i f i t ] c h a r g e s an
offense
o r ... t e n d s t o b r i n g an i n d i v i d u a l
contempt,
or r i d i c u l e ,
o d i o u s and d i s g r a c e f u l i n s o c i e t y . "
22
o r c h a r g e s an a c t
McGraw v. Thomason,
265
2090705 Ala.
635,
applied
639,
So.
2d
i n determining
defamatory reader
93
imputation
of
average
741,
744
whether is
(1957).
"The
a newspaper
whether
intelligence,
an
test
article
ordinary
reading
the
P a r t s & S e r v . Co.
(Ala.
1993)
325
So.
v. J o y Mfg.
( c i t i n g Loveless
2d 137,
142
a question,
i n the f i r s t
communication meaning, t h e r e proper.'"
is
not
i s no
Drill
( q u o t i n g H a r r i s v. 964-65
(Ala.
"The
makes
a
article
as
a
language."
2d 1280,
1289
A l a . 142,
148,
of
'[w]hether
the
c a p a b l e of a defamatory meaning i s
i n s t a n c e , f o r t h e c o u r t , ' and
i s s u e of
capable
fact,
& Serv.
School
a
or
So.
question
reasonably
Parts
619
v. G r a d d i c k , 295
(1975)).
communication i s reasonably
Co.,
be
reader
whole, would a s c r i b e a defamatory meaning t o the Drill
to
Co.,
and
a
defamatory
summary j u d g m e n t i s
619
Annual Publ'g
of
' i f the
So.
Co.,
2d 466
at So.
1289-90 2d
963,
1985)).
Taken i n i s o l a t i o n , t h e t e r m " p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p " does not
necessarily
However,
Nichols
carry
with
stated
i t any
that
she
pejorative used
that
connotation. term
after
r e c e i v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n from Spain
t h a t l e d her to b e l i e v e
Little
relationship.
and
J a c k s o n had
a dating
that phrase " i n greater context"
23
Davis
that
placed
i n t h e s t o r y by r e f e r r i n g
to
2090705 Little
as
implying
being the
February
20
unmarried,
relationship
editorial
thereby, was
at
romantic
least in
furthered that notion
t h e a u d i t as " L i t t l e ' s
arguably,
nature.
by
The
referring
sweetheart" d e a l , s i n c e t h a t term
to had
no o t h e r o b v i o u s m e a n i n g c o n s i d e r i n g no one h a d a l l e g e d L i t t l e h a d g a i n e d any p e c u n i a r y a d v a n t a g e v. K r o g e r L t d . P ' s h i p I , 28 2009)
So.
from the a u d i t .
3d 772,
776
See
Hale
(Ala. Civ.
App.
( h o l d i n g t h a t , i n r u l i n g on a summary-judgment m o t i o n ,
record
e v i d e n c e must be v i e w e d
nonmovant).
i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e
When c o u p l e d w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t s t h a t L i t t l e
to had
" o r d e r e d " t h e a u d i t and t h a t t h e a u d i t h a d p r o d u c e d n o t h i n g o f value
f o r the
implies
$2, 500
that L i t t l e
spent, used
the
entirety
his office
of the
statements
to b e n e f i t h i s romantic
i n t e r e s t s a t the expense of the C i t y of A n n i s t o n . I n m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , t h e movant b e a r s burden
the
o f p r o v i n g t h a t he o r she i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as
a matter
of
c a s e , CPC
and N i c h o l s a r g u e d i n t h e i r summary-judgment m o t i o n
solely
law.
Rule
56(c)(3),
t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d
A l a . R.
C i v . P.
In
t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r
this
of
law because the r e f e r e n c e t o a " p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p " between L i t t l e and J a c k s o n a l o n e c o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d d e f a m a t o r y i n
24
2090705 meaning.
They
statement
that
d i d n o t argue asserts
that
to the t r i a l
a public
court
official
that
a
had used h i s
p u b l i c o f f i c e t o d i r e c t p u b l i c f u n d s t o a p e r s o n w i t h whom t h e public
official
without incapable their
the public
involved
receiving
in a
to this
court
recommends
relationship'
with
that i s i l l e g a l
romantic
relationship
any c o r r e s p o n d i n g
o f defamatory meaning.
brief
official
was
that
someone
On a p p e a l , "whether they
they assert i n an e l e c t e d
have
t o do work f o r t h e c i t y
a
argument
city
'personal
i s not something
o r r i s e s t o t h e l e v e l t o meet t h e d e f i n i t i o n
of a d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t as a m a t t e r o f law." that
benefit i s
misses
the f u l l
point
However, e v e n
of L i t t l e ' s
claim.
M o r e o v e r , CPC a n d N i c h o l s d i d n o t c i t e a n y l e g a l a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t t h e i r argument. a movant f a i l s judgment
See R u l e 2 8 ( b ) , A l a . R. App. P.
When
t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t he o r s h e i s e n t i t l e d
to a
as a m a t t e r
o f l a w on t h e c l a i m
nonmovant, " ' t h e n he [ o r she] defense Fadal
Machining
(quoting So.
t o an i n s u f f i c i e n t Ctrs.,
by t h e
i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o judgment. showing
i s required.'"
L L C , 972 So. 2d 63, 69
Ray v. M i d f i e l d P a r k ,
2 d 686, 688 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ) .
asserted
Inc.,
293 A l a .
Horn v .
(Ala.
2007)
609, 612, 308
Thus, a l t h o u g h L i t t l e
25
No
argues
that
2090705 t h i s c o u r t s h o u l d h o l d t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s d e f a m e d him b o t h as a
city
councilman
dishonesty
and
argument.
We
and
as
a
minister
self-dealing, instead
hold
we
by
need
that
CPC
imputing not
and
to
him
address
Nichols
that
did
not
s u f f i c i e n t l y p r o v e t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as m a t t e r o f l a w on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s o f w h i c h complains
were
incapable
of
being
considered
a
Little
defamatory
in
nature. 3.
"Qualified Privilege" In Wilson
1986),
the
1975,
which
ยง
611
proceeding matter
accurate
court
Co.,
construed
the
482
ยง
as
publication
reflected in
(1977): another
"The in
a
the
of
of
2d
1209
certain
(Ala.
an
public
(Second)
defamatory official
and
public
concern
i s p r i v i l e g e d i f the
complete or a f a i r
26
abridgment of the
of
matter
action
o r o f a m e e t i n g open t o t h e p u b l i c t h a t d e a l s of
Code
c o d i f y i n g a common-
Restatement
p u b l i c a t i o n of report
So.
Arguments
13A-11-161, A l a .
c o n d i t i o n a l l y p r i v i l e g e d , as
concerning
a
makes
privilege
Torts
"Actual Malice"
Birmingham Post
supreme
information law
v.
and
or with
report
is
occurrence
2090705 reported." of
a
6
Under ยง 13A-11-161, "a f a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l r e p o r t "
statement
meeting
"shall
made
by a p u b l i c
officer
be p r i v i l e g e d , u n l e s s
during
a
i t be p r o v e d
same was p u b l i s h e d w i t h a c t u a l m a l i c e
that the
"
I n t h e i r summary-judgment m o t i o n , CPC a n d N i c h o l s t h a t , b e c a u s e S p a i n made t h e s t a t e m e n t s about
a matter
of p u b l i c
concern
public
at a public
and because
they
argued meeting fairly
reported those statements, thep u b l i c a t i o n of those statements is
qualifiedly
privileged.
The e v i d e n c e
i n d i c a t e s that the
statements a t t r i b u t e d t o Spain of which L i t t l e not
made
interview however,
i n the course following Little
does
of a
the conclusion n o t argue
a v o i d i n g a summary j u d g m e n t . CPC
and N i c h o l s
public
Little
failed to f a i r l y
meeting,
of
that
c o m p l a i n s were
a
point
b u t i n an
public
meeting;
as a b a s i s f o r
a l s o does n o t a r g u e
that
report the substance of the
I n W i l s o n v. B i r m i n g h a m P o s t Co., 482 So. 2d a t 1213-14, the supreme court arguably adopted the so-called " n e u t r a l - r e p o r t i n g p r i v i l e g e " t h a t was c r e a t e d i n Edwards v . N a t i o n a l Audubon S o c i e t y , 556 F.2d 113, 120 (2d C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) . N i c h o l s a n d CPC d i d n o t , h o w e v e r , r a i s e t h a t p r i v i l e g e i n t h e i r summary-judgment m o t i o n , s o we do n o t d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h a t p r i v i l e g e a p p l i e s t o r e l i e v e them o f l i a b i l i t y i n t h i s situation. 6
27
2090705 statements privilege
made by applies.
Spain.
Hence,
we
assume
the
qualified
7
O r d i n a r i l y , i n o r d e r t o overcome t h e q u a l i f i e d p r i v i l e g e , a p l a i n t i f f must p r e s e n t malice";
s u b s t a n t i a l evidence of
"common-law
h o w e v e r , when t h a t p e r s o n i s a p u b l i c o f f i c i a l
the a l l e g e d defamatory statement r e l a t e s t o h i s or her as
a
public
official,
"constitutional
malice"
by
G a r y v.
923
2d
Crouch,
Section provides: 7
602
So.
of
the
the
plaintiff
clear 1130,
and 1138
Restatement
must
convincing
conduct
establish evidence.
( A l a . C i v . App.
(Second)
and
2005)
of
Torts
"One who upon an occasion giving rise to a c o n d i t i o n a l p r i v i l e g e p u b l i s h e s a d e f a m a t o r y rumor o r s u s p i c i o n c o n c e r n i n g a n o t h e r does n o t abuse t h e p r i v i l e g e , e v e n i f he knows o r b e l i e v e s t h e rumor o r s u s p i c i o n t o be f a l s e , i f "(a) he s t a t e s t h e d e f a m a t o r y m a t t e r as rumor o r s u s p i c i o n and n o t as f a c t , and "(b) t h e r e l a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e i n t e r e s t s a f f e c t e d and t h e harm l i k e l y t o be done make t h e p u b l i c a t i o n r e a s o n a b l e . " See S t o c k t o n N e w s p a p e r s , I n c . v. S u p e r i o r C o u r t , 206 C a l . App. 3d 966, 254 C a l . R p t r . 389 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . N i c h o l s and CPC d i d n o t a r g u e i n t h e i r summary-judgment m o t i o n o r i n t h e i r a p p e l l e e s ' b r i e f t h a t Alabama law s h o u l d adopt the f o r e g o i n g p r o v i s i o n or t h a t i t would apply i n t h i s i n s t a n c e . Hence, we do n o t r u l e on t h a t p o i n t o f l a w . 28
2090705 ( c i t i n g Wiggins v. M a l l a r d ,
905 So. 2d 776 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ; a n d
S m i t h v . H u n t s v i l l e Times Co., 888 So. 2d 492 ( A l a . "Constitutional malice"
r e f e r s t o the standard
New Y o r k Times Co. v . S u l l i v a n , standard
2004)).
set forth i n
376 U.S. 254 ( 1 9 8 4 ) .
"This
i s s a t i s f i e d b y p r o o f t h a t a f a l s e s t a t e m e n t was made
' " w i t h k n o w l e d g e t h a t i t was f a l s e o r w i t h r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d o f w h e t h e r i t was f a l s e o r n o t . " ' "
S m i t h , 888 So. 2d a t 499
( q u o t i n g H a r t e - H a n k s Commc'ns, I n c . v . C o n n a u g h t o n , 491 U.S. 657, 376
659 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ,
quoting
i n t u r n New Y o r k Times v . S u l l i v a n ,
U.S. a t 2 7 9 - 8 0 ) . In
their
asserted
summary-judgment
motion,
CPC
and
Nichols
t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e y d i d n o t have any
k n o w l e d g e t h a t a n y t h i n g t h e y p u b l i s h e d was f a l s e a n d t h a t t h e y did
not a c t with
statements indicates
they that,
reckless
disregard
published.
The
a t the time
of the f a l s i t y
evidence
the statements
i n the were
of the record
published,
n e i t h e r N i c h o l s n o r CPC h a d any a c t u a l k n o w l e d g e r e g a r d i n g t h e falsity
of the a l l e g e d
rumor
Spain
related.
e v i d e n c e shows t h a t CPC knew t h a t S p a i n
However, t h e
disliked Little,
that
S p a i n r e l a t e d t o N i c h o l s t h a t any i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t L i t t l e a n d
29
2090705 Jackson flatly Nichols
he h a d was denied
founded
any p e r s o n a l
h a d no r e a s o n
information
raised serious
matter general
on r u m o r ,
denial.
inflammatory
of
Little CPC a n d
Although
n o r anyone e l s e a t The A n n i s t o n
publishing
policy
that
the
that
d o u b t s as t o t h e v e r a c i t y o f t h e
any i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e
before
8
r e l a t i o n s h i p , and t h a t
t o doubt t h a t
rumor, n e i t h e r N i c h o l s attempted
totally
Spain's newspaper
the t r u t h
statements to
of the
despite
double-check
Star
the such
remarks.
"The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s rumor f r o m o t h e r types o f r e p o r t s i s i t s l a c k of a s o l i d f a c t u a l b a s i s . " Note, L i b e l a n d t h e R e p o r t i n g o f Rumor, 92 Y a l e L . J . 85, 86 (Nov. 1982). Hence, "a rumor, b y i t s v e r y n a t u r e , s h o u l d r a i s e doubts i n t h e p u b l i s h e r ' s mind about i t s v e r a c i t y . " I d . a t 102. That i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n t h e p r e s e n t c o n t e x t because, d e s p i t e t h e a b s e n c e o f any f a c t u a l f o u n d a t i o n , r u m o r s have o f t e n " p r o v i d e d t h e mechanism f o r p o l i t i c a l m a n i p u l a t i o n . " I d . a t 87. Even i f a p u b l i c o f f i c i a l o r d i n a r i l y w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d a r e p u t a b l e s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n , when t h a t p u b l i c o f f i c i a l i n f o r m s a n e w s p a p e r r e p o r t e r o f a d e f a m a t o r y rumor a b o u t a p o l i t i c a l r i v a l , s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y i n g i t as s u c h , the newspaper r e p o r t e r s h o u l d r e a l i z e t h a t t h e p u b l i c o f f i c i a l i s c o n v e y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n o f a dubious and u n r e l i a b l e n a t u r e , possibly f o r p o l i t i c a l gain. I n a case i n w h i c h a newspaper r e p o r t e r o r n e w s p a p e r p u b l i s h e r l e a r n s o f a rumor u n d e r t h e foregoing circumstances, and f a i l s to i n v e s t i g a t e the s u b s t a n c e o f t h a t rumor b e f o r e p u b l i s h i n g i t , " [ p ] r o f e s s i o n s o f good f a i t h w i l l be u n l i k e l y t o p r o v e p e r s u a s i v e , " s e e S t . Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , t o a f a c t - f i n d e r , so summary j u d g m e n t w o u l d be i n a p p r o p r i a t e . 8
30
2090705 " M a l i c e can be shown by c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g , f o r e x a m p l e , ' t h a t t h e s t o r y was ... " b a s e d w h o l l y on" a s o u r c e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t had " o b v i o u s r e a s o n s t o d o u b t , " ' .... M c F a r l a n e [ v. Sheridan S q u a r e P r e s s , I n c . ] , 91 F.3d [1501,] 1512-13 [(D.C. Cir. 1996)] ( q u o t i n g S t . Amant[ v. Thompson], 390 U.S. [727,] 732, 88 S.Ct. 1323 [ ( 1 9 6 8 ) ] . However, m a l i c e c a n n o t be 'measured by w h e t h e r a r e a s o n a b l y p r u d e n t man w o u l d have p u b l i s h e d , o r w o u l d have i n v e s t i g a t e d b e f o r e p u b l i s h i n g . ' S t . Amant, 390 U.S. a t 731, 88 S.Ct. 1323 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . I n d e e d , t h e f a i l u r e t o i n v e s t i g a t e does n o t c o n s t i t u t e m a l i c e , unless the failure evidences '"purposeful avoidance,"' that i s , 'an i n t e n t to avoid the truth.' Sweeney v. Prisoners' Legal Servs., 84 N.Y.2d 786, 793, 647 N.E.2d 101, 104, 622 N.Y.S.2d 896, 899 (1995) ( q u o t i n g [ H a r t e - H a n k s Commc'ns, I n c . v.] C o n n a u g h t o n , 491 U.S. [657,] 693, 109 S.Ct. 2678 [ ( 1 9 8 9 ) ] ) ; see G e r t z v. R o b e r t W e l c h , I n c . , 418 U.S. 323, 332, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974)." S m i t h , 888
So.
2d a t
500.
" I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d that evidence that a p u b l i s h e r f a i l e d to i n v e s t i g a t e p r i o r to p u b l i c a t i o n does n o t , by itself, prove a c t u a l malice. ... However, when an a r t i c l e i s n o t i n t h e c a t e g o r y o f 'hot news,' t h a t i s , information t h a t must be p r i n t e d i m m e d i a t e l y or i t w i l l l o s e i t s newsworthy value, 'actual malice may be i n f e r r e d when t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r a s t o r y ... was g r o s s l y i n a d e q u a t e i n the circumstances.'" Hunt v.
Liberty
(citations Co. , 482
omitted);
So.
that L i t t l e
Lobby,
2d
257
see
720
F.2d
also
643
(11th
P e m b e r t o n v.
( A l a . 1985) .
had u r g e d t h e A n n i s t o n
$2,500 t o p e r f o r m a w o r t h l e s s
631,
In t h i s
Cir.
Birmingham
case,
News
information
C i t y C o u n c i l t o pay
a u d i t because of h i s 31
1983)
Jackson romantic
2090705 relationship
with
regardless
whether
spread
of
the
Nichols
or
rumor
that
to
the
would
i t was Nichols
some o t h e r
investigated infer
her
have
published or
days
the or
p e r s o n e m p l o y e d by
facts underlying
Nichols
remained
and
CPC
acted
the
day
after
Spain
weeks
later
after
CPC
rumor.
with
newsworthy
had A
actual
thoroughly jury
could
malice
or
r e c k l e s s l y i n p r i n t i n g the s t o r y d e s p i t e the t o t a l absence of any
i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the t r u t h f u l n e s s of the "The
United
States
Supreme C o u r t has
rumor.
explained:
"'[W]here the New Y o r k Times [Co. v. S u l l i v a n ] " c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g " e v i d e n c e requirement a p p l i e s , the trial judge's summary j u d g m e n t i n q u i r y as t o w h e t h e r a g e n u i n e i s s u e e x i s t s w i l l be w h e t h e r t h e evidence presented i s such t h a t a j u r y applying that e v i d e n t i a r y standard could reasonably f i n d f o r e i t h e r the p l a i n t i f f or t h e d e f e n d a n t . Thus, where t h e factual dispute concerns a c t u a l malice, c l e a r l y a m a t e r i a l i s s u e i n a New Y o r k Times [Co. v. S u l l i v a n ] case, the a p p r o p r i a t e summary judgment q u e s t i o n will be whether the evidence i n the r e c o r d c o u l d support a reasonable j u r y f i n d i n g e i t h e r t h a t the p l a i n t i f f has shown a c t u a l m a l i c e by c l e a r and convincing evidence or that the p l a i n t i f f has n o t . ' " A n d e r s o n v. L i b e r t y L o b b y , I n c . , 477 U.S. 242, 255ÂŹ 56, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ( f o o t n o t e omitted). The Supreme Court of Alabama has r e i t e r a t e d t h a t '[a] t r i a l j u d g e i s n o t r e q u i r e d " t o w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e and d e t e r m i n e t h e t r u t h o f t h e 32
2090705 matter b u t t o determine whether t h e r e i s a genuine i s s u e f o r t r i a l . " ' Camp v . Y e a g e r , 601 So. 2d [924,] 927 [ ( 1 9 9 2 ) ] ( q u o t i n g A n d e r s o n , 477 U.S. a t 249, 106 S.Ct. 2 5 0 5 ) . " Gary
v. Crouch,
summary
923 So. 2d a t 1138-39.
judgment,
this
court
reviews
the
a p p l y i n g t h e same s t a n d a r d s as t h e t r i a l We
conclude
that
the t r i a l
On
appeal case
court.
de
from
novo,
See i d .
court erred i n entering
summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f CPC a n d N i c h o l s on L i t t l e ' s claim.
Based
a
a
libel
on t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , a j u r y c o u l d be
c l e a r l y c o n v i n c e d t h a t N i c h o l s a n d CPC p u b l i s h e d a f a l s e a n d defamatory
rumor
about
Little
with
actual
reckless disregard of the t r u t h or f a l s i t y
malice
of that
or i n
rumor.
B. The T o r t - o f - O u t r a g e C l a i m Alabama
law r e c o g n i z e d the t o r t
of outrage
o r , as o u r
c o u r t system r e f e r s t o i t , i n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n o f emotional distress, 1994), (Ala.
Stewart
i n American
v. Matthews,
644
So. 2d
915, 918 ( A l a .
Road S e r v i c e Co. v . Inmon, 394 So. 2d 361
1 9 8 0 ) , when t h e supreme c o u r t h e l d : "[O]ne who by extreme and outrageous conduct i n t e n t i o n a l l y or r e c k l e s s l y causes severe e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s t o another i s s u b j e c t t o l i a b i l i t y f o r such e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s a n d f o r b o d i l y harm r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e d i s t r e s s . The e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s t h e r e u n d e r must be so s e v e r e t h a t no r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n c o u l d be expected t o endure i t . Any r e c o v e r y must be 33
2090705 r e a s o n a b l e and j u s t i f i e d u n d e r t h e circumstances, l i a b i l i t y e n s u i n g o n l y when t h e c o n d u c t i s e x t r e m e . ... By e x t r e m e we r e f e r t o c o n d u c t so o u t r a g e o u s i n c h a r a c t e r and so e x t r e m e i n d e g r e e as t o go b e y o n d a l l p o s s i b l e bounds o f d e c e n c y , and t o be r e g a r d e d as a t r o c i o u s and u t t e r l y i n t o l e r a b l e i n a c i v i l i z e d society." 394
So.
caselaw
2d
at
365.
to only
a
That few
tort
Little
since
been
factual situations.
R o b e r t s & G r e g o r y S. Cusimano, 1996).
has
argues t h a t
See
Alabama T o r t
this
court
Law
should
limited
by
Michael
L.
23.0
now
(2d e d .
expand
the
c a u s e o f a c t i o n t o encompass s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h a n e w s p a p e r publisher, denunciations persons
to
motivated
by
racial
bias,
of a p u b l i c o f f i c i a l issue
death
threats
that to
Some c a s e l a w other liable
jurisdictions
by
Little
conduct
i n which a p l a i n t i f f
or s l u r s .
public
third
official.
n o t be c o n s i d e r e d
to
libel. indicates
have r e c o g n i z e d
f o r outrageous
environment taunts
cited
libelous
c a u s e unknown
that
L i t t l e a l s o argues t h a t the c l a i m should be subsumed i n t h e t o r t o f
issues
that
courts
of
a d e f e n d a n t may
be
i n allowing i s forced
that
a
hostile
t o endure
work
racial
See C o n t r e r a s v. Crown Z e l l e r b a c h C o r p . ,
Wash. 2d 735, 736, 565 P.2d 1173, 1174
( 1 9 7 7 ) ; A l c o r n v. A n b r o
Eng'g, I n c . , 2 C a l . 3d 493, 496, 86 C a l . R p t r .
34
88
88, 89-90,
468
2090705 P.2d
216,
218
603,
604,
645
Servs.
( 1 9 7 0 ) ; see P.2d
Corp.,
holdings
of
situation
916,
918
So.
2d
959
those
cases
in this
a l s o Gomez v. ( 1 9 8 2 ) ; and 1044, do
not
i n d i c a t i n g that
the
used
racial
against
epithets
t h a t , b a s e d on commits
the
tort
criticizes
a
motivations. We has
of
outrage
public
of
Little
should
when
The
official
based
Daniel
on
The to
Anniston
printed
in
leadership, Little
has
Star
Little
that a
a
argues
newspaper or
falsely
improper
racial
9
need not d e c i d e t h a t q u e s t i o n ,
that,
any
exercising
however, because
not p r e s e n t e d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o support h i s
shows
the
presented
while
hold
2d
2007).
i t wrongfully
When v i e w e d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e since The
he
became
Anniston
policy
a
choices,
and
t a k e n p o s i t i o n s on
have
35
trial
many
criticized
effort.
several
L i t t l e d i d not c i t e to the c a s e d i r e c t l y on p o i n t .
to L i t t l e , the
councilman,
Star
9
any
not
Nevertheless,
t h o s e c a s e s , we
App.
translate
has
editors
p o s i t i o n o f a u t h o r i t y o v e r him.
(Miss.
readily
case because L i t t l e
7 Kan.
J o n e s v. F l u o r
1045
evidence any
Hug,
It
subjects
court
Little theory.
evidence
editorials Little's
appears of
that
political
or to t h i s
court
2090705 i n t e r e s t that c o n f l i c t with the stance of t h e newspaper, p a r t i c u l a r l y
of the e d i t o r i a l
regarding
a dispute
board
as t o t h e
b e s t a n d h i g h e s t u s e o f F o r t M c C l e l l a n , a t o p i c o f much p u b l i c debate i n Anniston. those e d i t o r i a l s but to
Little
testified
stemmed n o t f r o m l e g i t i m a t e p u b l i c
f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t he i s an A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n "kowtow" t o t h e w i s h e s
Star.
To
support
of the ownership
h i s opinion,
i n d i c a t i n g o n l y t h a t h i s name h a d a
t h a t he b e l i e v e d
disproportionate
Caucasian
number
counterparts.
CPC
more s t o r i e s a b o u t L i t t l e t o p i c s of p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . substantial
evidence
of
Little
ยง
12-21-12(a),
" s u b s t a n t i a l evidence" the t r i e r Co.
547
" s u b s t a n t i a l evidence"
Anniston
presented
evidence
appeared i n t h e newspaper
times
when
countered
compared
that
to h i s
i t had p r i n t e d
due s o l e l y t o h i s o u t s p o k e n n e s s on That e v i d e n c e h a r d l y
i n d i c a t i n g that
CPC
has
A l a . Code
1975
constitutes instituted
a
motivations.
(requiring
proof
of
i n o r d e r " t o s u b m i t an i s s u e o f f a c t t o
o f t h e f a c t s " ) ; a n d West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e
of F l o r i d a ,
debate,
and r e f u s e s
o f The
c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t L i t t l e b a s e d on i m p r o p e r r a c i a l See
that
So. 2d 870, 871
( A l a . 1989)
Assurance (defining
as " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t a n d q u a l i t y
t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l judgment
36
2090705 can
reasonably
proved"). We racial
infer
the
existence
of the
sought to
be
1 0
also
need
not
motivation,
decide
a
whether,
newspaper
can
outrageous
c o n d u c t when i t s r e a d e r s
against
public
a
information entire
fact
contained
argument
specifically
official
to
based
in editorials.
regarding include
the
his racial
absent be
held
instigate on
an
false Little
improper
liable
death or
has
for
threats
misleading couched h i s
tort-of-outrage
claim
component.
court
This
c a n n o t make and a d d r e s s l e g a l a r g u m e n t s f o r an a p p e l l a n t . D u n l a p v. R e g i o n s F i n . C o r p . , 983 B e c a u s e L i t t l e has
So.
not p r e s e n t e d
support h i s tort-of-outrage
claim,
entered
that
summary j u d g m e n t on
2d 374,
378
( A l a . 2007).
s u b s t a n t i a l evidence the
claim.
trial
See
court
Hence, we
to
properly need
not
I n another context, the Alabama C o u r t of Criminal A p p e a l s has s t a t e d t h a t " ' s t a t i s t i c s and o p i n i o n a l o n e do n o t prove a prima f a c i e case of [ r a c i a l ] d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . ' " Banks v. S t a t e , 919 So. 2d 1223, 1230 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005) ( q u o t i n g Woods v. S t a t e , 845 So. 2d 843, 845 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2002)). We n e e d n o t d i s c u s s a t any l e n g t h t h e t y p e o f evidence t h a t would s u f f i c e to prove t h a t a defendant acted w i t h r a c i a l animus i n an o u t r a g e o u s manner. We s i m p l y h o l d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e does n o t amount t o s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f an i m p r o p e r r a c i a l m o t i v a t i o n . 1 0
37
2090705 consider his
libel
L i t t l e ' s argument t h a t h i s c l a i m was n o t subsumed i n claim. Conclusion
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
we
reverse
the
summary
j u d g m e n t a s t o t h e l i b e l c l a i m a n d remand t h e c a s e f o r f u r t h e r proceedings
consistent
with
this
judgment as t o t h e t o r t - o f - o u t r a g e AFFIRMED
I N PART;
REVERSED
opinion.
We
a f f i r m the
claim.
I N PART; AND REMANDED
WITH
INSTRUCTIONS. P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson,
P.J., concurs
i n part
with w r i t i n g , which Bryan, J . , j o i n s .
38
and d i s s e n t s
i n part,
2090705 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g in part. Because
I believe
the t r i a l
i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g
court
properly
entered
a
summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f C o n s o l i d a t e d P u b l i s h i n g Company and Megan N i c h o l s as
to that
on a l l c l a i m s ,
I must r e s p e c t f u l l y
portion
of the opinion
j u d g m e n t on L i t t l e ' s
claim of l i b e l .
Bryan, J . , concurs.
39
reversing
the
dissent summary