Joseph v. Scranton Times, L.P.
89 A.3d 251
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- In May 2001 federal and state agents executed search warrants at the home of Thomas A. Joseph (Joseph, Sr.) and at Acumark, seizing business records; local press (Citizens’ Voice) published multiple articles between June and October 2001 reporting an expanded investigation that linked the Josephs and their businesses to money‑laundering, drug trafficking, gun running, prostitution, and political corruption.
- Appellants (Joseph, Sr.; Thomas J. Joseph; Acumark; Airport Limousine) sued the newspaper and reporters for defamation and false‑light invasion of privacy under Pennsylvania law; earlier proceedings produced conflicting rulings and a Supreme Court remand for a new trial due to judicial impropriety in the first trial assignment.
- A non‑jury retrial (May 2011) resulted in the trial court finding Appellants established falsity and most liability elements but awarded zero general damages, and entered judgment for defendants; trial court also dismissed certain false‑light/invasion claims and denied punitive and presumed damages without making a finding on actual malice.
- Appellants moved for JNOV or a new trial as to damages; the trial court denied those motions; the appellate court (this opinion) vacated the judgment and remanded, holding the trial court misapplied legal standards on damages and failed to resolve actual malice.
- The appellate court found (1) the trial court implicitly accepted falsity and liability except for damages; (2) the trial court erred by ignoring emotional‑distress evidence as part of general damages, requiring sole‑cause rather than substantial‑factor causation, and by treating an August 2001 article as not “of and concerning” Joseph, Sr.; (3) the court failed to make findings on actual malice, which is necessary to consider presumed and punitive damages; (4) Acumark’s special (economic) damages were properly rejected on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs proved general (actual) damages | Josephs: evidence of reputational harm plus emotional distress, humiliation, and family harm suffice | Times: reported searches and public investigation caused reputational harm; plaintiffs failed to prove injury attributable to defendants’ false implications | Trial court found no actual harm but appellate court held trial court misapplied law, ignored emotional‑distress evidence, and must retrial damages (general damages may include emotional harm) |
| Causation standard for damages | Plaintiffs: need only show defamatory publications were a substantial factor; not sole cause | Times: other truthful reporting (the searches) could explain reputational impact; plaintiffs failed to show sole causation | Appellate court: trial court erred requiring sole causation; substantial‑factor test applies; remand to assess causation and damages |
| Whether August 2001 airport‑transport article was “of and concerning” Joseph, Sr. | Plaintiffs: naming the Josephs as owners of airport services amid money‑laundering/drug allegations implied they were personally involved | Times: article discussed a business investigation, not plaintiffs personally | Appellate court: trial court erred — juxtaposition and naming made the article "of and concerning" Joseph, Sr.; must be considered for damages on remand |
| Need for actual malice finding to award presumed or punitive damages | Plaintiffs: even as private figures, proved actual malice; if proven, entitled to presumed and punitive damages without separate compensatory award | Times: plaintiffs were private figures and failed to prove damages; no need to reach malice or presumed/punitive damages | Appellate court: trial court erred by not making a factual finding on actual malice; proof of actual malice would permit presumed and punitive damages; remand for determination of malice and related relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (U.S. 1986) (plaintiff bears burden to prove falsity when matter is of public concern)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) (First Amendment limits on presumed/punitive damages; states may require actual malice for such awards)
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1985) (plurality) (distinguishing matters of public concern for defamation remedies)
- Walker v. Grand Cent. Sanitation, Inc., 634 A.2d 237 (Pa. Super. 1993) (held plaintiff must prove at least general damages in defamation per se cases)
- Agriss v. Roadway Express, Inc., 483 A.2d 456 (Pa. Super. 1984) (adopting Restatement rule that libel is actionable without proof of special damages)
- Frisk v. News Co., 523 A.2d 347 (Pa. Super. 1986) (approved jury instruction allowing presumed damages upon proof of actual malice)
- Laniecki v. Polish Army Veterans Ass’n, 480 A.2d 1101 (Pa. Super. 1984) (private‑figure plaintiff seeking punitive damages must prove actual malice)