*1 could they instructed and had been they properly (cid:127) they Steel, return verdict U.S. solely against against Ingersoll-Rand. found well have very might to give net of the trial court’s error was effect whom they thought attractive target against jury very received liability. jury could Since the assess they al- possible under an erroneous impression case outcome, аffected well have might ternatives court and the trial I reverse judgment trial. Grasha new award Appellants, v. National Dominiak et al., Enquirer. 1969. Before C. J., November Bell,
Argued Roberts O’Brien, Eagen, Pomeroy, Cohen, Jones, JJ.
Michael J. for Pepe, Jr., appellant.
Wilbur IT. Haines, Jr., with him Frederick M. Low- ther, James T. Giles, and Hamilton Pepper, Scheets, & for appellees.
Opinion by Mr. 1970: July 2, Justice Cohen, This appeal involves the application Pennsylva- nia’s one year statute of limitations Act libel, March 1 Sin. L. 12 P.S. Act of 76, §1, §31; April 25, 1850, P. L. 12 569, P.S. §35, §32, to Uni- form Single Publication Act, Act August 1953, 21, P. L. 1242, et 12 P.S. seq., et seq.1 §1 §2090.1
John Dominiak, minor, his filed suit by guardian, against National Best Enquirer, Medium Publishing Co., Inc. and United News on Company March 1965 15, alleging National March Enquirer issue dated 1964 contained material 29, to him. Appel- lees, Best Medium Co. and National En- Publishing quirer, moved for on the summary judgment ground of action cause was barred by the statute and this motion limitations, granted the court below. This Court discussed Uniform Publication Act Herald, Company,
Gaetano Sharon Pa. A. 2d 753 (1967), question proper on but case centered Tenue for the action. Printing
The relevant are as follows: facts March Sunday, the National dated Enquirer issue on Tues- 1964, commenced New Tenafly, Jersey on March 10, copies March 10, 1964. day, Beginning plant Best printing were transported terminals and other York railroad terminals City New country. throughout wholesalers shipment terminals these employees were distributed Copies de- were Thursday, copies on March 10. On 4,000 Best to newsstands approximately livered by City the Nеw York dealers throughout other retail 200,- date on which area, approximately metropolitan Friday, on On sale. placed public were 000 copies newsstands, at sale were copies placed March 13, mailed were subscription copies the same date and on *3 Office in New from the General Post to subscribers copies on March 14, Beginning Saturday, York City. Philadelphia. at newsstands on sale placed were for one week when at newsstands on sale remained issue and replaced by copies removed were copies unsold next issue. date important held The court below “[t]he evi- from uncontradicted case as appears in this March 1964, reсord is is 14, on the dence for the first appeared the publication on which date on March suit was Since started Philadelphia. time but no it is barred question can be there 1965, 15, concede, As appellees Limitations.” the Statute which the one year date on is the 14, 1964, if March of the conclusion court below commenced, 38 of the Pennsylvaniа Section light incorrect Act of L. May P. Act, Construction Statutory Pa. B. C. P. 106. They and §538, 46 P.S. 1019, on March action as 15, 1965, filing permit Sunday. a 1965 was 14, March however, the crucial position, is appellees’ but rather March 1964, 10, 14, date
225
copies
delivery
common car
the commencement
shipment
distribution
terminal em
riers
and
(3d
ployees,
127
Hartmann v.
166 F. 2d
Time, Inc.,
(S.D.
Supp.
1947),
39 F.
662
Look, Inc.,
Cir.
Backus v.
1941),
Hospital
v.
America
N.Y.
National Cancer
1956),
(Sup.
N.Y.S. 2d 443
Ct.
Confidential, Inc., 151
copies
were
at the latest March
when 200,000
metropoli
placed
public
York
to the
in the New
sale
Corp.,
Publishing
F.
Interstate
317
tan
Zuck
area,
v.
(2d
1963), Gregoire
2d
G. P. Putnam’s
727
Cir.
(1948), Polchlopek
298 N.Y.
In
it is
passage
ine
оf the Uni-
the conditions that led to the
supina. Traditionally, the
form
Publication Act,
de-
common
communication of a
law held that each
famatory
separate
cause
action.
statement created
Eng.
Q.B.
Duke
Brunswick v. Harmer,
Rep.
development
(1849).
of mass media
With
today,
anachronistic
as it is
a rule became
known
such
single
possibility
defаma-
because it
that a
created the
tory
give
rise to millions
causes
statement would
necessity
created,
action. “From the sheer
thus
recognition
communication of a
that mass
purposes,
practical
con-
communication,
developed
single wrong,
stitutes a
courts have
composite
theory
‘single publication’
tort
of a
as
*4
printing
in
all
embraces
the acts involved
which
magazine
newspaper
to its
of a
or
and distribution
jurisdictions.”
Harper
many
in
of readers
1
millions
In
§5.16
394-395.
and
at
Torts,
Law
James,
adopt-
single publication
many
rule
been
has
states
Syracuse
part
v.
of the common law.
ed as
Wolfson
App.
Newspapers,
4
640
Div.
N.Y.S. 2d
Inc.,
254
(1939);
(1938),
Restatement No. Tentative Draft 2d, Torts, 12, §577A In thе prin- other states Pennsylvania six (1966). has been ciple adopted by legislature. appeal
The section of to this applicable the statute in pertinent is Section P.S. §2090.1, which states “No more than one cause part: shall have person for or other found- action for libel... tort damages any one edi- ed . . . such as any any upon single of a . . action shall tion . newspaper. Recovery any all suffered by include such tort damages jurisdictions.” all It is the position ap- on the rule centers that “the pellees single publication of a news- magazine that issue principles single issue of thousands consists paper, although publi- effect one distributed, legal is copies widely of action for rise to but one cause gives cation which action at the and that cause of accrues libel, single their argument time of first publication.” Therefore, the day is directed to the what problem day for it is of the statute, first publication purposes the one year their contention that it is that day commenced. period as that a number true, appellees contend,
cases hold that
the Statute of
Limitations begins
ini-
run as to the
cause of action on the date of
York
tial
v. New
Post
publication. Buckley
Corpora-
Zuck
Interstate
tion,
;
227 begins of of to run from the time the first limitations publication. designed clear statute protection from countless to offer to defendant tolling limita- an almost endless the statute suits, (al- divеrsity applicable in tions and substantive law though problems area have choice of in this law scarcely purpose settled). been can be effectuat- That plaintiff may any publi- holding ed choose represents single his cation as the he cause of mean that action. This does not may damages publications; recover fоr all hold prevent purpose endless would defeat statute’s may tolling only re- of limitations. He the statute occurring damages publications cover that result year applicable (assuming limita- within that is the example period) might An tions of the date he chooses. helpful. publications be arti- Assume January beginning cle in New York on were made Pennsylvania beginning February in on and in New 1). Jersey (all year on in Assume then Pennsylvania plaintiff February brought in suit appellees’ theory, of Year 2. his whole suit Under (It matter which be barred. does not state’s would year. applied as each is one statute limitations is §51-a). Un- N.Y. Practice Act, N.J.S.A. Civil 2A:l!-3; interpretation our of the statute, der damages not for suffered would be able to recover prior publications there in New York as result year period February because the one 15 of Year damages expired. to recover He would be able had Jersey publications be- suffered as a result New expired. year As to had dam- cause that one Pennsylvania, re- ages he would be able to suffered publications a result after as those suffered cover February a re- Year but not those suffered 15 of as publications The nature defama- before. sult job difficult be toiy publication might helpful For done damage assessing damages. example, be an article in a daily newspaper probably *6 or initial publication, the greatest following two dаy that done be constant over while a book might or if the defama- even increase over time long period inter- matter created tory public constantly increasing est and sales. the ap
The with the problem theory presented by An the un for abuse it creates. pellees potential article scrupulous publisher might print about a distribute a New copies Californian and few the well feel that the time and York; might plaintiff did not the of an ac expense involved warrant filing then after one over (assum the was tion; year period a one California has the ing year period also) publish er the of country could flood California and rest the the under no with article face and, appellees’ theory, of Publica threat See Winrod McFadden liability. F. Ill. tions, 62 Hartmann Supp. 249, (N.D. 1945) ; Co., v. American News 69 F. 738-39 Supp. (W.D. 736, Li The Publication Rule in 1947); Note, Wis. : A Fiction L. bel 62 Harv. 1043- Misapplied, Rev. The we are the (1949). interpretation stat giving as far as considerations are concerned, ute, policy prop balances the interests the and defend erly ant аnd the of such possibility eliminates abuse.
The statute the such an inter- wording permits Section P.S. “No pretation, §2090.1, states per- son have more than one cause of action shall for dam- for libel ... other tort founded ages upon any . . . .” A de- single publication (Emphasis supplied). famed has many causes the statute person action; he one merely says has cause action for damages. does it state of action Nowhere that that cause for dam- Statute run ages (and Limitations) must initial publication. time a certain statute was give purpose construc- to the defendant. Our measure protection cer- at the same time gives it does that and tion the interests to the plaintiff. places tain flexibility balance. parties proper he en- As filed suit March appellant to prove the article defamatory) titled (assuming he result of publications suffered as a damages after March 1964.
The order of the court reversed. below is Concurring Opinion Roberts : Mr. Justice between are here concerned the interplay We оf law in defamation cases: two rules applicable meant to year against statute limitations, guard publi- of stale presentation claims; *7 of cation meant suits. to rule, prevent multiplicity Yet, of them both. Sound reasons public support policy ef- if in too literal the combined construed a fashion, unduly fect of yield these rules can a result which harsh and rational consid- unsupported by policy any erations.
In when the the instant case decide statute we must ma- of run. I with the limitations to began quite agree behind that neither nor the jority policy wording limi- of either rule “requires period holding publi- tations to run from the of the first time begins to permit cation.” I not believe it wise do However, publicatiоn a defamation to choose sale plaintiff any cause of action. as the one which his single represents can The one any given publication dissemination to months or perhaps years; cover several one of many “pub- a suit to be based permit occur the course such can during lications” which the salutary purposes distribution would defeat publica- and single statute limitations year rule. tion begins
I hold that the statute would at run, publication from the time a first reaches the earliest, allegedly community. defamed A individual’s distribu- tion which too small or too far from the removed community—the defamed individual’s size vary scope public his stature—to be truly damaging hardly permitted trigger should be the statute of limitations.
Applying such a standard to I be the instant case began lieve that the statute of to run no limitations major earlier than March the date of the first Philadelphia.* prior publication distribution in The though quantitatively significant, in New was York, just sufficiently appellant extensive vis a vis trigger Appellant the statute limitations. figure, only not a national and the defamation could really begin when the material was communicated to community. Sunday, his Since March was a timely I. believe that the suit was filed and concur the result. Opinion Pomeroy
Concurring : Mr. Justice developed single publication common rule at adopted Commonwealth statute this law action for dam- to a cause of limits a ages resulting ma- determining problem case is one terial. The purposes act of limitations which for the the statute *8 upon “single publication” publication of to be the is agree ma- I the of action arises. with which the cause jority nothing opinion in the Uniform there that is period the that Publication Act which states * assigned by publisher publication tbe the In date a dated especially running statute, might that where the of the control well believing plaintiff might the statu- the into have misled date yet tory period run. had not tbe publica- limitation to run on date first begins That act all to the limitations tion. does at speak “No person It shall problem. merely provides for for more than one action damages hаve cause in action include all libel . . . shall dam- Recovery any in all ju- suffered the plaintiff such tort ages P. L. §1, risdictions.” Act August P.S. a sufficient deci- body Nor is there §2090.1. the inter- sional the Act to in interpreting dictate, law est answer any particular achieving uniformity, before question the the Court. al-
It is the first the my view publication in in the state which leged brought defamation suit taken and so mark single publication should be as the a rule the the statute runs. Such date which I adequate the would, believe, provide jurisdiction the the transitory, action flexibility; being in matter of reflect- plaintiff’s choice, sued would be a of the the his calculation convenience ing forum, under extent of the substantive law damages,1 protect case be tried. would also which the would of recover- a defamed person against impossibility which for an libelous publication extensive ing damages hometown, statutory reaches into his publi- run virtue previously prior suit having or from his so far removed cation so limited scope to the de- domicile that was unknown publication even had justified famed nоt have suit would person it been known. rule le-
Such a serve defendant’s equally would an interest re- certainty, interest gitimate statute limita- one-year flected in Pennsylvania’s damages suggested, all suffered in here Under rule computed necessarily jurisdictions from the to be have date i.e., “single publication,” the date of first jurisdiction of suit. *9 year's now 257
tions, old. At the same it wоuld time, preserve Pennsylvania the normal nexus between a Pennsylvania cause of action and the statute of limita- point judicial tions.2 From the view administra- tion, moreover, it would seem that such a rule would easily comprehended be applied; the considerable problems in the area of litiga- multi-state defamation tion clarity. aр- underscore the need for such IWhile preciate balancing the careful interests which majority opinion attempts, I doubt that the various interests in involved or this similar case are ade- quately by plain- reconciled a rule which would allow a any single tiff to publication—no choose act of matter place how remote in publiсa- or in time from the first tion—as the date from which the statute is to run. Neither do I certainty think the cause of relative is ad- by proposed vanced such rule, as that Justice necessarily Roberts, vague on focuses such con- cepts plaintiff’s as the “community”, or “stature”, “major distribution”.
If suggested applied rule as here be to the facts difficulty conсluding there no case, publication the first act of in this state occurred on parties disagree 1964. The 14, do not that this upon alleged was the date which the ma- unlikely The rule here advocated would not cover the situa Pennsylvania respect of a suit in tion libel which had Pennsylvania. published Pennsyl case, never been In such a courts, applying рrinciples laws, vania the normal of conflict of place would have to look to the law of where the upon “single publication” declared occurred to determine if it is a state, apply statute, either common law or and then law jurisdiction as to whether the asserted cause of action is based publication. apрlied on the correct The statute of limitations be state, Pennsylvania, viz., case be that of the forum such a application Pennsylvania subject possible of course to the “borrowing” statute, §1, Act of June P. L. 12 P.S. in Phila terial was first sale at newsstands placed communica This constituted an intentional delphia. (see tion than the defamed Restatе person other *10 ment Gaetano v. Sharon Herald Torts, §577; Co., no Pa. and there is A. 2d 753 (1967)), need here to consider the refinements of “publication” are briefed March parties. ably of this action been a having Sunday, filing the statute. Accordingly, 1965 was within I of the Court. concur the decision joins concurring opinion.
Mr. Justice Jones Commonwealth, Pennsylvania, Scavo Highways, Appellant. Department of