Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co.

Citation. 771 P.2d 406 (Cal. 1989)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation771 P.2d 406 (Cal. 1989)

Brief Fact Summary.

Brown filed a defamation suit when Kelly Broadcasting Company (Kelly) broadcasted a story that Brown, a licensed contractor, performed incomplete work for a client.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The news media does not maintain a public-interest privilege that exempts them from liability when making defamatory statements regarding private citizens.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The Legislature is deemed to be aware of existing laws and judicial decisions in effect at the time legislation is enacted and to have enacted and amended statutes in the light of such decisions as have a direct bearing upon them.

View Full Point of Law

Kelly Broadcasting Company (Kelly) broadcasted a story that Brown, a licensed contractor, performed incomplete work for a client. Brown sued for defamation. Kelly claimed that the news media maintained a public-interest privilege that exempts them from liability when making defamatory statements concerning the public interest. The trial court granted summary judgment to Kelly, and the appellate court reversed.

Issue.

Whether the news media maintains a public-interest privilege that exempts them from liability when making defamatory statements regarding private citizens?

Held.

No. The judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed. There is no public-interest privilege for the media.

Discussion.

The news media does not maintain a public-interest privilege that exempts them from liability when making defamatory statements regarding private citizens. The interested person privilege under the California statute does not reference the public interest, or privilege the media. Every news story published by the media is of public interest, and would protect the media from any defamation suit brought by a private individual.