Salinas v. Salinas
365 S.W.3d 318
Tex.2012Background
- Norberto Salinas, a public official, sued Maria Salinas for three allegedly defamatory statements.
- Statement One was made at a city council meeting accusing Norberto of stealing, lying, and killing.
- Statement Two, claimed to be said to a third party, alleged Norberto was a drug dealer and corrupt politician.
- Statement Three, made on Telemundo, claimed Norberto was told he would be killed, allegedly by a La Joya mayor.
- The trial court held all statements defamatory per se; the jury found the drug-dealer statement false and made with actual malice.
- The jury found mental anguish proximately caused by the city council and drug-dealer statements but not by the Telemundo statement, and awarded $30,000 in mental anguish damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can Telemundo statement support damages? | Salinas contends Telemundo statement was defamatory per se and actionable. | Salinas argues Telemundo statement did not proximately cause damages and no award supported by verdict. | No damages for Telemundo statement; remand for remaining issues. |
| May appellate per se presumption justify damages for defamation per se? | Damages presumed for defamation per se entitle Norberto to recover. | Presumption does not fix a specific damage amount; jury must determine actual damages. | Damages not presumptively awarded; jury must assess actual damages. |
| Can court affirm on Telemundo grounds given jury rejected proximate-causation for that statement? | Court of Appeals could rely on Telemundo damages. | Jury did not find proximate cause for Telemundo damages; appellate court erred. | Court of Appeals erred; remand for other issues; Telemundo damages vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (defamation per se presumed damages; still not fixed amount)
- Denton Publ'g Co. v. Boyd, 448 S.W.2d 145 (Tex. 1969) (nominal damages and proximate result requirement in defamation per se)
- Tex. Disposal Sys. v. Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc., 219 S.W.3d 563 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007) (defamation per se damages left to jury; no fixed rule)
- Adolf Coors Co. v. Rodriguez, 780 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989) (damages in libel per se discretionary to jury)
- Bradbury v. Scott, 788 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989) (damages in libel per se left to jury when not definite)