Would this be considered defamation?

[quincy]

Quaere - You know, I wasn't going to respond to any more of your posts, because on one you are steering a guy right to jail with the assertion that he can legally tape his neighbors , and on this one you are claiming that I know nothing about defamation suits. To quote Caveman, "Dude" that is my area!!! I KNOW libel, I KNOW slander, I KNOW DEFAMATION!!! And I followed the Eminem case closely, and it was settled out of court, as you said, AS ARE MOST family defamation cases. I am NOT telling people that they can do illegal things, nor am I giving them false hope. I am giving them legitimate answers and legitimate ways to solve problems, and legitimate ways to avoid lawsuits. You are putting them in the middle of them.
Can family members take each other to court for criminal acts? OF COURSE THEY CAN. Can they take each other to court for defamation? OF COURSE THEY CAN. You can sue anyone at any time for any reason whatsoever. Are defamation suits between family members USUALLY brought to court? NO. They are settled long before they reach that stage. And on all your other little comments, well, you are just wrong.
And I take back what I said earlier. I DON'T like your name. Sue me for libel.

 

[Quaere]

Quincy: MOST people that come here want their legal options explained to them. They are not asking whether the people here think they should pursue legal recourse. They are not asking for validation of their feelings. They are not asking for an evaluation of their personality or intelligence.

OP’s question was:

I would like to know if I have any legal recourse against Daytona Beach News Journal for defamation since they didn't verify all the facts before publishing the article?

The correct answer to that question is that if the article meets the definition of libel and if she can show the newspaper was negligent in reporting the facts, OP most definitely DOES have a cause of action against the Journal.

I didn’t say you know NOTHING about defamation. Unfortunately, you know enough to spout some buzz words and THAT will cause most OP’s to mistakenly believe you are qualified to explain the law to them. You are not.

The fact that you think the Family Immunity Doctrine could possibly be applied to a defamation claim, shows that you have no understanding of the doctrine or defamation law.

You don’t seem to know the difference between the meritorious defenses available in a defamation suit and the kinds of immunities that may protect someone from suit.

You originally said:

Libel suits against family members are nearly impossible to bring and to win

This implies that the relationship between plaintiff and defendant is relevant to the claim. It is NOT.

You said:

it was settled out of court, as you said, AS ARE MOST family defamation cases

Something like 98% of ALL CIVIL CLAIMS settle out of court. Do not imply that a defamation claim is any less viable than any other civil claim.

Please feel free to have the last word. As a rule I try to limit my posts to directly addressing OP’s question and I will return to that policy after this post.

 

[fairisfair]

Q and Q,

Ah, and just last night you two were loving each other's names. Guess the honeymoon is over eh???

 

[Quaere]

Not for me! I love that name and I don't allow my personal feelings or preferences to be affected by the fact that someone disagrees with me.

I like the name because my sister used to have a ferret named Quincy and that animal was a riot!

 

[quincy]

To Q. -
I cannot believe I am getting sucked into this again. I just wanted to say that your
"defamation" example of the brothers Hughes had nothing to do with defamation and it was also a California case, not a Florida case. California (as have about half of all states) abrogated the Family Law Doctrine before Hughes v. Hughes ever occurred and even if it hadn't, Hughes v. Hughes has no bearing whatsoever on a defamation suit in Florida. Most states, including Florida (the state where TeresaYo lives), retain the family law doctrine in some form or another, and it is used.
The information I provided TeresaYo was accurate, and the advice I gave her was good. She will be able to have the record set straight on the errors in the newspaper article and she will not have to turn over her money to an attorney to represent her in a defamation suit that she is unlikely to win.
You told me you would let me have the last word, so this is it. Now you can go back to Thread 3 (or is it 4 now) of your other little crusade to wrong the rights of other posters.

 

[BoredAtty]

Interesting discussion regarding the Family Immunity Doctrine. I was inspired to see how the Florida courts have treated the doctrine. Herzfeld v. Herzfeld, 781 So.2d 1070 (Fla., 2001) gives an in-depth history of the doctrine, and how it has been applied in Florida.

Apparently, the policy behind the doctrine is to maintain family harmony. It only seems to have been successfully applied in cases of negligence where the child is an unemancipated minor. The doctrine is abandoned in cases where its purpose is not furthered.

Based on what I read, I have a hard time believing that it would be applied in a defamation suit where the child is 18 and hasn't lived with her parents in some time. In that instance, there is no family harmony to protect.

 

[quincy]

BoredAtty - OK, this is basically from a BoredJrnlst who really should be doing something more productive than this.....however:

The Florida Court stated in 1970 that it is "established policy...that suits will not be allowed in this state among members of a family unit for tort. Spouses may not sue each other, nor children their parents. The purpose of this policy is to protect family harmony and resources" (the bolding is mine) (Orefice v. Albert) The Court followed the precedent set by the district court and held that family members suing each other would be inconsistent with Florida public policy. In 1982, the Court waived the doctrine in tort actions for negligence in accidents covered by insurance. (Ard v. Ard). The Court found that the doctrine was no longer justified in cases where parents had insurance but it still applied to bar other claims. Interspousal immunity was abrogated in Waite v. Waite (this case was about sexual abuse).

Now, the Court's precedent is to uphold family immunity except in limited instances. The benefits to be gained by family tort action, Florida believes, do not justify abrogating the parent/child immunity doctrine.

My reason for believing it would still apply in the poster's case is a case brought by a 20 year old against his parents. The Court said: "Although parental immunity doctrine only applies to suits filed by minors, the child's argument is contrary to numerous cases holding that the relevant measuring period is from the time the alleged misconduct occurred, not the time that the actual suit was filed." (Robinson v. Robinson) What was recounted in the newspaper story, apparently, was the 18 year old's history with her family, when she was, indeed, a minor. It is difficult to bring a defamation suit (a tort action) against a family member in Florida, which is what I originally stated and which is what Q. objected to.

My reason for believing that TeresaYo would be better off having a feature story or a rebuttal in the newspaper instead of filing a defamation suit is what I bolded in the second paragraph. Resources. It costs a lot of money to sue. She did not say she had any damages (other than, perhaps, emotional distress). And newspapers can usually spend more money and more time on a suit than the average person has or wants to part with.

Can TeresaYo sue the newspaper based on what was written? Absolutely. Should she? Not unless she "meets all the definitions of libel", as Q. said, and wants to spend lots and lots of time and money. Can she prove that what her daughter said was defamatory? I think it will be hard to bring suit to prove defamation under the family immunity doctrine, under which I think these defamatory comments could legitimately be covered. Can she prove damages? I don't know, and I said as much to TeresaYo.

I still think that her best recourse is to communicate with the editor, who will probably suggest several alternatives to a lawsuit - saving everyone time and money, and perhaps her daughter will read the story and apologize to her mother and they will all live in perfect family harmony forevermore.

I realize that this may not be a popular argument against a lawsuit among attorneys. NOW, I am done with this thread......

 

[TeresaYo]

Hi!

I didn't get anywhere with the editor. I was told that it was a "good story" and that if I was to do a rebuttle, I would have to have my name printed. Instead of causing more attention to the situation, I decided that it would be best if I just put the article in the past and move forward with my life. My daughter manipulated the story and hopefully she'll have gotten it out of her system and will grow up. I just don't want to cause anymore attention to the story or my daughter...after thinking it over, it's just not worth the anguish. I truly appreciate all the help from the posters here though. Thank you so much!!!

Teresa

 

[fairisfair]

Hi!

I didn't get anywhere with the editor. I was told that it was a "good story" and that if I was to do a rebuttle, I would have to have my name printed. Instead of causing more attention to the situation, I decided that it would be best if I just put the article in the past and move forward with my life. My daughter manipulated the story and hopefully she'll have gotten it out of her system and will grow up. I just don't want to cause anymore attention to the story or my daughter...after thinking it over, it's just not worth the anguish. I truly appreciate all the help from the posters here though. Thank you so much!!!

Teresa

A happy ending, where sanity and reason prevails.

Good luck to you Teresa!!!

 

[BoredAtty]

Quincy, I think you're missing the meat of Florida's case law.

Rather than rigidly view the case law as creating exceptions when the parents have insurance, or where sexual abuse is alleged, you should focus on the reasoning behind the rulings so that you can apply the reasoning to a different set of facts.

In cases where the doctrine is inapplicable, the common logic is that the underlying policy behind the doctrine (to keep the family unit healthy) is not furthered by barring the lawsuit. That's why a child can sue his parents up to the limit of their liability insurance (the parents are not financially injured, and thus, the family unit is not harmed by the lawsuit), and that's why a child can sue his parents in sexual abuse cases (the family unit is already injured by the alleged abuse, and a lawsuit can do no further harm to the family).

Once you recognize the commonality between cases, you will see that when the doctrine's purpose is not furthered, it will not apply. That's the rule to take from the case law.

In the case at hand, the daughter has not lived with her mother for some amount of time. The daughter is a legal adult. The daughter allegedly defamed her mother (indicating a bad relationship). Barring the mother from suing the daughter will not preserve a healthy family unit if none existed, and therefore, the doctrine's purpose will not be furthered.

As for this:

"Although parental immunity doctrine only applies to suits filed by minors, the child's argument is contrary to numerous cases holding that the relevant measuring period is from the time the alleged misconduct occurred, not the time that the actual suit was filed." (Robinson v. Robinson) What was recounted in the newspaper story, apparently, was the 18 year old's history with her family, when she was, indeed, a minor.

The OP would not be suing her daughter for a tort that occurred when she was a minor (as appears to be the case in Robinson v. Robinson). The OP would be suing for a tort that occurred when her daughter was an adult. The fact that the subject of the daughter's defamation is a false allegation regarding her childhood has no relevance.

BTW, what is the cite for Robinson v. Robinson? Thx.

 

[fairisfair]

Quincy, I think you're missing the meat of Florida's case law.

Rather than rigidly view the case law as creating exceptions when the parents have insurance, or where sexual abuse is alleged, you should focus on the reasoning behind the rulings so that you can apply the reasoning to a different set of facts.

In cases where the doctrine is inapplicable, the common logic is that the underlying policy behind the doctrine (to keep the family unit healthy) is not furthered by barring the lawsuit. That's why a child can sue his parents up to the limit of their liability insurance (the parents are not financially injured, and thus, the family unit is not harmed by the lawsuit), and that's why a child can sue his parents in sexual abuse cases (the family unit is already injured by the alleged abuse, and a lawsuit can do no further harm to the family).

Once you recognize the commonality between cases, you will see that when the doctrine's purpose is not furthered, it will not apply. That's the rule to take from the case law.

In the case at hand, the daughter has not lived with her mother for some amount of time. The daughter is a legal adult. The daughter allegedly defamed her mother (indicating a bad relationship). Barring the mother from suing the daughter will not preserve a healthy family unit if none existed, and therefore, the doctrine's purpose will not be furthered.

As for this:

The OP would not be suing her daughter for a tort that occurred when she was a minor (as appears to be the case in Robinson v. Robinson). The OP would be suing for a tort that occurred when her daughter was an adult. The fact that the subject of the daughter's defamation is a false allegation regarding her childhood has no relevance.

BTW, what is the cite for Robinson v. Robinson? Thx.

troublemaker

 

[quincy]

Damn, and I was on such a roll

OK, OK, OK. I admit it. I was wrong about the application of the immunity doctrine in this particular case.

But NOT about my advice to TeresaYo, because that was excellent advice. I do not believe she could have successfully sued the newspaper for defamation AND she would have been out major amounts of money and time if she had tried. Talking to the editor was a much wiser course of action. The newspaper HAS pulled the article from their databases now, I believe, and I think the reporter will get a stern lesson on the importance of verification.

I apologize to all of you (well...maybe not Quaere ) for making you look up so many obscure cases. I admire you for doing that. At least all of you now know everything there is to know about the Family Immunity Doctrine.

Anyway, sorry for not admitting defeat earlier. It all made so much sense in my head

 

[BoredAtty]

Damn, and I was on such a roll

OK, OK, OK. I admit it. I was wrong.

But NOT about my advice to TeresaYo, because that was excellent advice. I do not believe she could have successfully sued the newspaper for defamation AND she would have been out major amounts of money and time if she had tried. Talking to the editor was a much wiser course of action. The newspaper HAS pulled the article from their databases now, I believe, and I think the reporter will get a stern lesson on the importance of verification.

I apologize to all of you (well...maybe not Quaere ) for making you look up so many obscure cases. I admire you for doing that. At least all of you now know everything there is to know about the Family Immunity Doctrine.

Anyway, sorry for not admitting defeat earlier. It all made so much sense in my head

No need to apologize. I found the discussion interesting, and I now know a lot more about the Family Immunity Doctrine than I ever did before.