the Dallas Morning News, Inc. and Steve Blow v. John Tatum and Mary Ann Tatum
554 S.W.3d 614
| Tex. | 2018Background
- Paul Tatum, a 17-year-old, died from a self-inflicted gunshot after a prior car crash; his parents (the Tatums) published an obituary stating he died “as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident.”
- Columnist Steve Blow wrote a Dallas Morning News opinion column referencing that paid obituary and revealing that Paul’s death "turned out to have been a suicide," urging more openness about suicide.
- The Tatums sued Blow and The Dallas Morning News for libel/libel per se (claiming defamation by implication/gist) and brought DTPA claims; trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The court of appeals reversed as to the libel claims, holding a reasonable reader could infer Blow accused the Tatums of deception and that the implication was verifiable and defamatory.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the column was reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning, whether any such meaning was opinion (nonactionable), and whether truth/substantial truth or other defenses applied.
Issues
| Issue | Tatum's Argument | News/Blow's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the column was reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning | Column implied the Tatums deceptively hid Paul’s suicide in the obituary | Column was a general opinion piece about societal secrecy around suicide, not an accusation of deception | Court: The column could reasonably be read to imply the Tatums acted deceptively (defamatory implication exists) |
| Whether the alleged defamatory meaning arises from gist or discrete implication | The defamatory meaning flows from the portion referencing the Tatums’ obituary (partial implication/gist) | The column’s overall gist is societal commentary, not a factual accusation about the Tatums | Court: The overall gist is societal; a discrete implication reasonably imputing deception to the Tatums exists and the text itself shows intent to convey that implication |
| Whether the implied accusation is verifiable (opinion vs. fact) | The Tatums: their mental state and intent in drafting the obituary are verifiable circumstantially | News: The charge of deception is inherently subjective/unverifiable and the column is opinion by context (first-person, exhortatory) | Court: Even if an implication of deception is capable of being read, the column’s context (opinion format, disclaimers, first-person commentary) renders the implication an opinion and thus nonactionable |
| Truth / Substantial truth as defense | Tatums: column’s implication was false and harmful; claimed factual dispute exists | News: The obituary omitted suicide and therefore the column’s implication that the obituary was deceptive is (substantially) true | Court: The implication that the obituary was deceptive is literally or at least substantially true because the obituary omitted suicide; truth/substantial truth supports dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Musser v. Smith Protective Servs., 723 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. 1987) (threshold: whether words are reasonably capable of defamatory meaning)
- Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. 2000) (recognizing defamation by implication/gist causes of action)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) (statements not verifiable as false are protected opinion)
- Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2013) (verifiability and substantial-truth doctrines in Texas defamation law)
- Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (contextual analysis to determine opinion vs. assertion of fact)
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485 (1984) (appellate courts’ duty of independent review on speech-restrictive issues)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (First Amendment standards and actual malice framework)