Krajewski v. Gusoff
53 A.3d 793
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Krajewski, a Philadelphia City Council member, sued editors/publishers of the Northeast Times for defamation and false light invasion of privacy.
- The trial court granted preliminary objections (demurrer) and dismissed the claims for defamation and false light except as to one issue involving the Holmesburg Library.
- The court held defamation claims failed for January 10, 2008, January 17, 2008, and August 14, 2008 pieces, but allowed potential false light claims to proceed for the December 8, 2008 Opinion page.
- The December 8, 2008 page included an Editorial linking DROP payments to Holmesburg Library closure and a caricature and letters alleging “ill-gotten gains,” creating potential false implications.
- This Court affirmed in part (defamation for some articles upheld the demurrer; false light for the Holmesburg Library and other articles remanded), and remanded for discovery and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the publications state a defamation claim against Krajewski | Krajewski argues the articles carry provable false implications | Newspapers contend statements are opinions and not false facts | Defamation demurrer affirmed for January 10, 2008, January 17, 2008, August 14, 2008 content |
| Whether the false light claim should survive demurrer | Krajewski asserts publications placed her in a false light | Publication concerns legitimate public issues; lack of falsity/actual malice warranted demurrer | False light claim with Holmesburg Library was remanded; other false light claims affirmed in part and remanded for discovery |
| What standard applies to false light in this context | False light can be established by false impressions even from true statements | False light requires lack of legitimate public concern or immunity under First Amendment | Court rejects Rush’s lack of public concern element; adopts Restatement 652E approach for false light |
| Whether the December 8, 2008 Opinion page could support libel | Editorials and cartoon create defamatory implication | Opinions expressing disapproval and hyperbole are protected | Editorial page may support libel if it creates provable false implications; remand for that claim |
| Whether the Newspapers’ articles involve compelled discovery or factual falsity | Discovery could uncover falsity/actual malice | Preliminary objections bar such allegations absent provable false facts | Remand proceedings to address falsity/actual malice issues for false light and Holmesburg Library materials |
Key Cases Cited
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (defamation standard and falsity protections for public figures)
- Rush v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 732 A.2d 648 (Pa. Super. 1999) (public concern and defamation-related principles in PA)
- Larsen v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 543 A.2d 1189 (Pa. Super. 1988) (false light; extends to public as well as private facts)
- Hill v. Time Inc., 385 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1967) (constitutional protections in false light limit; knowing/reckless falsehood standard)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (U.S. 2011) (First Amendment limits in true/false context of speech)
- MacElree v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 674 A.2d 1050 (Pa. 1996) (context of false light; control of imputed impressions at issue)