Wade Brady v. Leaanne Klentzman and Carter Publications, Inc. D/B/A the West Fort Bend Star, Inc.
515 S.W.3d 878
| Tex. | 2017Background
- Wade Brady sued reporter LeaAnne Klentzman and the West Fort Bend Star for libel arising from a newspaper article describing Brady as unruly and intoxicated during encounters with law enforcement and portraying his father, Chief Deputy Craig Brady, as using influence with officers.
- The jury found some statements defamatory, concluded defendants failed to prove substantial truth (placing burden on defendants), found "malice" under a jury definition focused on intent or conscious indifference, and awarded $50,000 in actual damages and $1,030,000 in exemplary damages (later reduced).
- Defendants appealed, arguing the jury charge erred by shifting the burden of proving truth to defendants and by allowing punitive damages without requiring constitutional actual malice; they also challenged sufficiency of evidence for damages.
- The court of appeals held the article involved matters of public concern, reversed the verdict, and remanded for a new trial requiring plaintiff to prove falsity and actual malice; it also found some evidence of actual damages.
- The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: the article concerned public matters (chief deputy’s conduct), the trial charge violated First Amendment standards by misallocating the burden and misdefining malice, and there was legally sufficient evidence of actual damages to avoid rendition for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the article concerns a matter of public concern | Brady: specific allegations about him were private and not newsworthy | Defendants: story about Chief Brady's influence over officers is public concern | Held: Article concerned public matters (official conduct); details had logical nexus to public issue |
| Who bears burden to prove falsity for statements on public issues | Brady: no error in jury charge placing burden on defendants to prove truth | Defendants: First Amendment requires plaintiff to prove falsity | Held: Error — plaintiff must prove falsity for media speech on public matters |
| Standard required for exemplary (punitive) damages for speech on public matters | Brady: jury’s malice definition (intent or conscious indifference) sufficed | Defendants: punitive damages require constitutional "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) | Held: Error — plaintiff must prove constitutional actual malice in addition to statutory malice for exemplary damages |
| Sufficiency of evidence for actual (non-nominal) damages | Brady: offered testimony that some community members thought less of him and employer action led to job loss request | Defendants: evidence is legally insufficient to support amounts for reputation or mental anguish | Held: Some evidence supported actual damages (community belief and employer concern); remand (not rendition) appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Phila. Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (private plaintiff must prove falsity for matters of public concern)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (recovery beyond actual damages requires proof of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard)
- Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (definition of public concern: relates to political, social, or other community concerns)
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (determine public concern by content, form, context)
- KBMT Operating Co., LLC v. Toledo, 492 S.W.3d 710 (Tex.) (First Amendment requires falsity proof by private plaintiff for public matters)
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex.) (defamation per se permits nominal damages without proof of actual injury)
- Burbage v. Burbage, 447 S.W.3d 249 (Tex.) (proof required to show people believed defamatory statements and reputation actually affected)