Warren Aldous and Michael Aldous v. Eric Bruss
405 S.W.3d 847
Tex. App.2013Background
- Bruss sued Michael Aldous for defamation in Jan 2009 alleging false statements harming Bruss’s professional reputation and accusing him of crimes.
- Bruss later added Warren as a defendant in Sept 2009; the two Aldous defendants’ conduct overlapped in publicity and email postings.
- Michael moved for summary judgment (no-evidence) in Feb 2010; he argued statements were true or non-actionable opinions and that there was no knowledge of falsity.
- Michael filed special exceptions challenging Bruss’s notice and the specificity of defamed statements; the court denied them in June 2010.
- A jury trial (May–June 2011) found Michael published 36 of 37 statements, 25 defamatory with malice, awarding Bruss $75,000 for past and future reputational harms.
- Damages hearing against Warren (partial summary judgment on liability in 2010; damages awarded $150,000 in March 2011) followed by Craddock-based motion practice; Warren appealed both liability and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered evidence standard applied to new-trial motion | Aldous contends new evidence warrants a new trial | Aldous asserts discovery was not diligent and evidence is new | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Effectiveness of Michael's special exceptions | Bruss’s petition provided fair notice | Bruss failed to plead slander per se with specifics | No abuse of discretion; exceptions overruled |
| Privilege defense for statements | Statements were actionable defamation per se | Statements were privileged (911/complaint) | Privilege not absolute; issues waived; claim rejected on record |
| Partial summary judgment on Warren liability | Warren admitted defamatory statements via deemed admissions | Questions about admissions and procedural posture exist | Affirmed partial liability judgment against Warren |
| Damages award against Warren for defamation | Damage award supported by per se presumption and evidence | Award excessive or unsupported | Affirmed damages; not excessive; within tribunal’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939) (Craddock standard for motions for new trial)
- Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. 1984) (Damages in defamation per se; presumption of harm)
- Adolf Coors Co. v. Rodriguez, 780 S.W.2d 477 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989) (Damages in defamation per se; jury discretion)
- Bradbury v. Scott, 788 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989) (Damages in libel per se; jury discretion)
- San Antonio Credit Union v. O’Connor, 115 S.W.3d 82 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003) (Qualified vs absolute privilege considerations)