Headlines alone may constitute libel

Law Reporter, May 1999

Kaelin v. Globe Communications Corp., 162 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1998).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that newspaper headlines may form the basis of a libel action.

Here, one week after O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder, a tabloid featured a headline about Simpson's houseguest, "Kato" Kaelin, stating "COPS THINK KATO DID IT!! ... he fears they want him for perjury, say pals." Kaelin sued the publishing company, among others, for libel. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment.

Reversing, the Ninth Circuit noted that in libel cases, California courts have emphasized that a publication should be measured by the natural and probable effect on the mind of the average reader. In this case, because the headline appeared just one week after Simpson's acquittal, a reasonable person might have concluded the "it" on the cover and internal headlines referred to the murders. Although defendant argued that "it" referred to perjury, the court held that as long as the publication is reasonably susceptible to a defamatory meaning, a jury question remains.

The court noted that a defamatory meaning must be found in a reading of the publication as a whole. However, to sustain a libel action, not every word of an allegedly defamatory publication must be false. Noting that it was addressing an issue of first impression, the court said it was clear under state law that headlines are not extraneousthey are essential elements of a publication.

The court concluded that a fact question remained as to whether the rest of the story removed any false or defamatory meaning found on the cover because the story was located 17 pages from the cover and the headline did not reference the article's page. Holding that a reasonable juror could find actual malice existed, the court remanded.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

Gary L. Bostwick, Santa Monica, Cal.

[Comment: In Hill v. Evening News Co., 715 A.2d 999 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998), a man convicted of aggravated assault but acquitted of murder charges sued a newspaper, its editor, and a reporter for defamation when it incorrectly reported he had been convicted of seconddegree manslaughter and was being sent to prison as a "convicted killer." A New Jersey trial court granted defendants summary judgment.

Reversing, an appellate court found the statements were defamatory and plaintiff was not a public figure when the article was written. The court remanded for a determination of whether plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure. *Daniel A. Zehner, Woodstown, N.J., represented plaintiff.]

[Documents in Hill are available through the Court Documents section in the back section of this issue, courtesy of Mr. Zehner.]