JERRY HELTON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jerry Helton brought a defamation action against United Press International, which obtained summary judgment under the then-prevailing standard requiring proof of actual malice. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the Supreme Court's decision in Gertz v. Welch changed the applicable standard for private figure plaintiffs, eliminating the requirement to prove actual malice while restricting damages to compensation for reputational injury.
Private figure defamation plaintiffs are no longer required to prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. However, damages must be restricted to compensatory damages for injury to reputation when actual malice is not proven.
[1] In defamation actions, private individuals who are neither public officials nor public figures are no longer required to prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard…
[2] The media can no longer rely on the 'public or general issue' doctrine as a defense in defamation suits brought by private citizens who are not public officials or public…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the doctrine of 'public or general issue' is no longer available to the media as a defense in a defamation suit by a citizen who is neither a public official or a public figure”
Establishes the core holding from Gertz v. Welch regarding elimination of the public issue defense for private figure plaintiffs
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Helton sued UPI for defamation, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of UPI based on…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reckless Disregard For The Truth cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Chief Judge.
By a complaint sounding in defamation, plaintiff Helton prayed that compensatory and punitive damages be assessed against defendant, U.P.I. The trial court rendered a scholarly summary judgment in favor of defendant U.P.T.; hence this appeal by plaintiff.
The summary judgment at the time same was entered on the 19th day of March, 1974, fully reviewed and applied the rule of law enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964); Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967) ; Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, 403 U.S. 29, 91 S.Ct. 1811, 29 L. Ed.2d 296 (1971); Damron v. Ocala Star-Banner Co., 263 So. 2d 291 (1 Fla. App.1972) ; and Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 85 S.Ct. 209, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964). The trial court summarized its final summary judgment by holding:
“Finally, plaintiff can only sustain his action upon clear and convincing proof of actual malice or that the publication was made with a reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”
Had the Federal Supreme Court adhered to the decisions relied upon by the trial court, this instant appeal would have been affirmed by this Court. But such is not the case.
In the case of Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974),1 the Federal Supreme Court scrivened an epilogue to those decisions analyzed and applied by the trial court. According to Gertz, the doctrine of “public or general issue” is no longer available to the media as a defense in a defamation suit by a citizen who is neither a public official or a public figure. Defamation plaintiffs that are neither public officials nor public figures2 are no longer required to prove knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth as apparently was required by the progenitors of Gertz. However, damages must be restricted to compensating private individuals for injury to reputation in those cases where knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth is not proven.
The judgment appealed is reversed with directions to set aside the final summary judgment and for further proceedings consonant with this opinion and the opinion of the Federal Supreme Court in Gertz v. Welch, supra.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur. . In moving for the summary final judgment, defendant U.P.I. strongly relied upon Gertz v. Welch opinion rendered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 471 F. 2d 801 (7th Cir. 1972), stating in its brief, “The closest ease on point appears to be Gertz v. Welch . . . . ” This is the same Gertz that the U. S. Supreme Court reversed.
. Plaintiff Helton clearly is not a “public official or a public figure”.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shaw From v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., 400 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…nce standard. We [*56] are not unmindful that several post- Gertz cases decided by Florida courts appear to indicate in dicta that a negligence standard has been adopted vis-a-vis private citizen plaintiffs. See Helton v. United Press International, 303 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Karp v. The Miami Herald Publishing Company, 359 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Gadsden County Times, Inc. v. Horne, 382 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). These cases, however, do not mandate a negligence standard and are distingu…
-
The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Aurelio ANE, 423 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…1977), cert, denied, 358 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1978). Another district stated that under Gertz, private plaintiffs no longer need prove actual malice, but also failed to state which standard of fault would apply. See Helton v. United Press International, 303 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cited by the majority. That same court, as recently as last year, stated that “the Supreme Court of our state has not had or taken the opportunity to adopt an actual malice or simple negligence standard, and we restrain ourselve…1 / 2
-
Smith v. Taylor Cnty. Publ'g Co., Inc., 443 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…ount necessary to compensate them for their actual injuries by requiring that the New York Times “actual malice” standard be met in order to recover punitive damages. 418 U.S. at 349, 350, 94 S.Ct. at 3011-3012; Helton v. United Press International, 303 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Although private individuals must only meet a negligence standard at the federal level, the Gertz court held that states can adopt any standard, with regard to private individuals, including requiring them to meet an “actual ma…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974)
- Curtis Publ'g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1967)
- Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1964)
- Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1971)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 471 F.2d 801 (7th Cir. 1972)
- Damron v. Ocala Star-Banner Co., 263 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)