John Tatum and Mary Ann Tatum v. the Dallas Morning News, Inc. and Steve Blow
493 S.W.3d 646
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Tatums sued DMN and Blow for libel and DTPA after a Dallas Morning News column about suicide criticized the Tatums’ handling of their son Paul’s death and obituary.
- Paul Tatum, 17 at death, died by self-inflicted gunshot after a car crash; Tatums published obituary stating death from automobile injuries.
- One month later, Blow’s DMN column described deception around suicides and mentioned Paul’s death indirectly, leading readers to infer Tatums’ deceit.
- Tatums alleged the column defamed them by accusing deception about Paul’s death and by insinuating mental illness and failure to intervene.
- DMN movants sought traditional and no-evidence summary judgments; court granted some but not all grounds, then the trial court’s judgment was partially reversed and remanded.
- The appellate court held: (i) libel claims survive summary judgment (genuine fact issues on falsity and defamation), but (ii) DTPA claims can be dismissed; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the column defamed Tatums | Column conveyed deception by Paul’s obituary and involvement of Tatums | Column contained nonactionable opinion or truthful gist | Genuine fact issue on defamatory meaning; libel claims survive |
| Whether the column’s truth/substantial truth defeats defamation | There was evidence to show false gist and false inference about deception | Column true or substantially true or privileged | Genuine fact issue; not conclusively true or substantially true; cannot sustain summary judgment on truth grounds |
| Whether column was privileged as fair comment or official proceeding | Privileges do not shield false gist about private individuals | Column could be privileged if substantially true | Official proceeding privilege not applicable; fair comment privilege not dispositive due to genuine fact issue on truth (substantial truth) |
| Whether Tatums are limited-purpose public figures and required actual malice | Tatums are limited-purpose public figures due to public controversy surrounding Paul’s death | Tatums are private figures; negligence suffices | Tatums are private figures; negligence standard applies for damages; actual malice issue arises for exemplary damages if matter of public concern |
| Whether Tatums raised fact issue on negligence and actual malice | Evidence of faulty investigation and motive shows malice and negligence | No malice; standard investigations were sufficient | Genuine fact issues on both negligence and actual malice; summary judgment on libel denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2013) (defamation review; standards for truth, privacy, and privilege; substantial truth)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (verifiable false standard for matters of public concern)
- Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (actual malice standards for private figures with public concern)
- Phila. Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (U.S. 1986) (truth and falsity on matters of public concern; burden on plaintiff)
- Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. 2000) (defamation gist; context and perception of audience)