208 So. 3d 1017
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Susan and Robbie Arnaud own Robbie’s Wrecker Service located outside Eunice city limits; the Eunice Police Department maintained a rotation list for tow services that previously included their business.
- Ronald Dies was elected Eunice Chief of Police and, by letter dated Dec. 31, 2010, removed Robbie’s from the rotation list effective Jan. 1, 2011, citing that only wrecker services headquartered inside city limits would remain.
- On Jan. 3, 2011 Dies told a local reporter that the rotation was changed because of “numerous complaints” about the firm’s selective response; that quote was published in The Eunice News and became the basis for a defamation suit.
- The trial court dismissed the Arnauds’ defamation claims, finding no malice and no damages; the Arnauds appealed.
- The appellate court held the reporter’s quote was defamatory per se (injury, falsity, and fault presumed), found Dies failed to rebut falsity or lack of reasonable belief, found publication and damages proven, and awarded $10,000 each in general damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dies’ statement that there were “numerous complaints” was defamatory per se and false | Arnauds: statement implied professional incompetence/unreliability and was false; removal was for location, not complaints | Dies: removal was based on location and also on complaints he had heard from officers | Held: statement is defamatory per se; the record shows location was the basis and Dies failed to rebut falsity presumption |
| Publication to a third party | Arnauds: statement was published via The Eunice News reporter | Dies: admits he made the statement to reporter; publication not disputed | Held: publication proven (reporter attributed direct quote) |
| Fault / malice (reasonable belief in truth) | Arnauds: malice/fault presumed for defamation per se and Dies acted with reckless disregard by not verifying complaints | Dies: claimed hearsay complaints from officers justified statement; argued absence of ill will | Held: Dies failed to verify or produce complainants; acted with reckless disregard; fault/malice established |
| Damages and quantum | Arnauds: suffered humiliation, social stigma, changed routines, emotional distress; seek general damages | Dies: trial court required expert proof of injury and found no damages | Held: general damages proven by testimony and community reaction; awarded $10,000 each |
Key Cases Cited
- Costello v. Hardy, 864 So.2d 129 (La. 2004) (defamation elements and malice standard)
- Sassone v. Elder, 626 So.2d 345 (La. 1993) (defamatory meaning and court’s role in interpretation)
- Trentecosta v. Beck, 703 So.2d 552 (La. 1997) (elements of defamation and publication)
- Kosmitis v. Bailey, 685 So.2d 1177 (La. App. 1996) (defamation per se and presumptions of falsity, malice, and injury)
- Fitzgerald v. Tucker, 737 So.2d 706 (La. 1999) (definition and consequences of defamatory words)