108 So. 3d 429
Miss. Ct. App.2012Background
- Hudsons sued WLOX for defamation in Mississippi state court.
- Pre-suit notice statute § 95-1-5(1) required notice identifying the article, broadcast, and specific false statements.
- Hudsons’ August 30, 2006 letter claimed the June 21, 2006 broadcasts saidHudsons were not licensed contractors and had been sued for defective work; it identified two telecasts.
- Hudsons filed complaint October 17, 2006 asserting the same defamatory points indicated in the notice.
- Circuit court limited trial to three statements from the notice; jury instructed that only substantially similar language could prove publication and falsity.
- Majority held pre-suit notice must specify the statements; but statements in complaint may be considered for context if connected to the notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of pre-suit notice contents | Hudsons argue notice covers overall tenor of broadcasts. | WLOX contends notice limited to stated three statements only. | Notice must specify false statements; scope limited to substantially similar statements. |
| Sufficiency of notice under substantial compliance | Substantial compliance allowed less-than-strict detailing. | Notice must clearly name the false statements. | Two elements required; identifying statements is a critical element; substantial compliance applies but still requires specified statements. |
| Jury instruction framing defamation claim | Jury should consider broadcast in context; not limited to exact notice language. | Instruction aligned with notice and complaint; focused on three phrases. | Trial court erred by restricting to three statements; jury should evaluate statements in context of the entire broadcast. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brocato v. Mississippi Publishers Corp., 503 So.2d 241 (Miss. 1987) (pre-suit notice required before libel actions)
- Lee v. Memorial Hospital at Gulfport, 999 So.2d 1263 (Miss. 2008) (substantial-compliance approach to notice; elements may be implicit)
- Chalk v. Bertholf, 980 So.2d 290 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (pleading defamation requires particulars; context considered)
- Nezelek v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 413 So.2d 51 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) (best-possible notice; substance identified for defamation)
- Hulander v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 364 So.2d 845 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978) (notice must identify precise defamatory statements)