329 Ga. App. 890
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- In May 2011, 13‑year‑old Dustin Athearn and a friend created a fake Facebook account posing as classmate Alexandria (Alex) Boston and posted false, racist, sexual, and drug‑related statements and altered photos.
- Dustin created the account using a home computer and the family Internet connection; the fake profile quickly gained 70+ “friends” and remained viewable for ~11 months.
- The school investigated on May 10, 2011; Dustin and his friend admitted involvement, were disciplined, and Dustin’s mother, Sandra Athearn, signed the school referral acknowledging the misconduct.
- After notice, the Athearns disciplined Dustin at home but made no effort to view, delete, or otherwise remove or correct the online postings; Facebook ultimately deactivated the account months later after suit was filed.
- The Bostons sued for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the Athearns moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted the motion in full and the Court of Appeals reviewed that decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents can be liable for negligent supervision for failing to remove/stop ongoing online defamation after notice | Boston: Once the Athearns knew Dustin created the fake profile, they had a duty to supervise and to take reasonable steps to stop ongoing publication; their inaction proximately caused continued injury | Athearn: They had no reason to foresee Dustin would create the profile until after the act; once notified, they took discipline and cannot be held liable for the child’s tort | Court: Reversed in part — a jury could find that after notice the Athearns failed to exercise reasonable supervision and that this negligence proximately caused continued harm from ongoing publication |
| Whether landowners (or household Internet account holders) have a separate duty as possessors of property to remove defamatory content displayed on their premises | Boston: Independently of parental duty, the Athearns as possessors of the computer/Internet service had a duty to remove defamatory material exhibited on their property | Athearn: They lacked the unilateral ability to remove the Facebook page; only account-holder/password owner or Facebook could remove it | Court: Affirmed in part — no evidence the Athearns had the practical ability to remove the online content, so summary judgment was proper on this theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Assaf v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 327 Ga. App. 475 (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Hill v. Morrison, 160 Ga. App. 151 (parental negligence turns on foreseeability of harm from unsupervised child)
- Kitchens v. Harris, 305 Ga. App. 799 (parental liability requires notice of child’s proclivity for the specific dangerous activity)
- Mullinax v. Miller, 242 Ga. App. 811 (in libel law, publication includes the ability to control the libel)
- Mathis v. Cannon, 276 Ga. 16 (continuing publication doctrine for online defamatory material)
- Corley v. Lewless, 227 Ga. 745 (parents not liable for child’s torts merely because of parent‑child relationship)