John Daly v. Jacksonville Times Union

Team:
Alex Sohali
Chris Seckman


Litigants

Plaintiff- John P. Daly, an individual

Defendants- MORRIS PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC a foreign limited liability company, MORRIS PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC d/b/a THE FLORIDA TIMES-UNION; MIKE FREEMAN, an individual; and JACKSONVILLE.COM an unincorporated association or other entity

Date/Court/ Status

The suit was filed July 26th, 2005 in Duval County Circuit Court, Florida. The civil lawsuit was done and ordered in favor of the defendants on March 17th, 2009. The renewed motion for summary final judgment filed by the defendants was granted to each of the defendants against the plaintiff. The plaintiff recovered no damages and the defendants went hence without day. Also, the Court reserved jurisdiction to award costs and attorneys fees to the defendant.

Summary

The plaintiff, John P. Daly, a widely recognized public figure and professional golfer on the PGA tour sued the defendants for defamation (Counts 1-6), invasion of privacy-false light (Count 7), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count 8), and negligent hiring and supervision (Count 9) and as a result of these grievances the plaintiff seeks monetary compensation in an unspecified amount in excess of $15,000. The acts in question occurred in a March 25th, 2005 opinion sports column written by sports-writer Mike Freeman. The article entitled “Daly, Duval Star in Golfs Surreal Life” appeared in the print edition of The Florida Times-Union and on its website found under the domain name jacksonville.com. In the column, Freeman expresses opinions about the long-standing, public controversy surrounding Daly's career and personal life. Daly alleged that some of Freeman’s statements concerning the former British Open champion were false in nature and were portrayed as fact. In order for Daly to successfully win his six counts of defamation (1&4: Domestic Violence, 3&6: Shawn Kemp of Golf, 2&5: Thug Life) he had to prove that that statements Freeman made were false, were damaging to Daly, and were not matters of opinion. Under the First Amendment, public figures in defamation lawsuits are required to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence and because actual malice is subjective, Daly had to prove that Freeman published the alleged defamatory statement with the knowledge that it was false or while entertaining serious doubts as to its truthfulness. There was no evidence to suggest that any of the factual statements used in Freeman’s article were false much less that the Defendants were subjectively aware of their falsity at the time of publication. In counts 7 through 9, Daly asserted claims for Invasion of Privacy-False Light, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligent Hiring and Supervision respectively. In count 7, Privacy-False Light, summary final judgment was determined because in Florida no such cause of action exists. As for the remaining two counts filed by Daly, Count 8 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress & Count 9 Negligent Hiring and Supervision, Florida allows the single publication/single action rule which prohibits a party from basing additional torts on the same essential facts as a failed defamation claim. Because Daly had alleged nine causes of action on the same group of facts Counts 7 through 9 were barred by the single publication/single action rule and summary final judgment was entered.