Hill v. Schmidt
969 N.E.2d 563
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Hill, pro se plaintiff, sued Sanford Schmidt and Alton Telegraph for defamation and reckless endangerment over a April 8, 2011 news article about his murder case conviction and alleged cooperation with authorities.
- Article reported Hill pleaded guilty to solicitation of murder, cooperated with authorities, and testified against his brother, with the shooter Demetrius Hill later pleading guilty.
- April 28, 2011 Telegraph correction stated Hill cooperated but did not testify against a codefendant; information attributed to Hill's mother and noted as contrary to prior reporting.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1, arguing fair-report privilege and reliance on official statements; Hill argued lack of evidence and unfounded statements.
- Trial court dismissed with prejudice, concluding the article was a fair and accurate summary under the fair-report privilege and that claims failed to state defamation per se or per quod; Hill appealed.
- Appellate court affirmed, concluding the original article reasonably summarized official statements and the privilege applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fair-report privilege barred Hill's defamation claim | Hill contends statements were unfounded and not within privilege | Schmidt/Telegraph argue statements were fair, accurate summaries of Beyers' official statements | Yes; privilege applied, original article a fair summary of official statements |
| Whether the article was defaming per se or per quod | Hill asserts per se/per quod because statements damaged reputation | Privilege and gist of report negate defamation claims | Defamation per se and per quod not established; no actionable defamation |
| Whether Hill pled damages adequately to support defamation per quod | Hill alleges various harms but not pleaded as specific damages | No pleaded special damages | Yes; Hill failed to plead/prove special damages for defamation per quod |
| Whether the trial court properly applied the fair-report privilege given the correction | Correction raises questions about accuracy and source | Correction did not undermine that reporter reported official statements | Yes; correction did not defeat privilege; original report remained privileged |
Key Cases Cited
- Tepper v. Copley Press, Inc., 308 Ill.App.3d 713 (1999) (fair-report privilege extends to official statements)
- Catalano v. Pechous, 83 Ill.2d 146 (1980) (defense of fair-report privilege in official reports)
- Myers v. Telegraph, 332 Ill.App.3d 917 (2002) (privilege extends to statements by law enforcement in official capacity)
- Dolatowski v. Life Printing & Publishing Co., 197 Ill.App.3d 23 (1990) (oral statements in interview protected if summary of official statements)
- Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill.2d 558 (2006) (defamation analysis focuses on accuracy of the report's gist; not truth of source material)
- Kurczaba v. Pollock, 318 Ill.App.3d 686 (2000) (special damages required for defamation per quod)