Namath Joe Jackson v. WAFF, LLC, and Huntsville Broadcasting Corporation

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/23/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110643 Namath Joe Jackson v. WAFF, LLC, and H u n t s v i l l e B r o a d c a s t i n g C o r p o r a t i o n Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court (CV-11-643) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMAS, J u d g e . The n o - o p i n i o n o r d e r o f a f f i r m a n c e o f A u g u s t 17, 2 0 1 2 , i s withdrawn, and the f o l l o w i n g i s s u b s t i t u t e d t h e r e f o r . 2110643 In early October 2010, a victim of a shooting s t a t e m e n t naming Namath J o e J a c k s o n as t h e man who t h e v i c t i m i n t h e h a n d and h a d s t o l e n h i s c e l l u l a r On October operated 12, 2010, by named LLC, to as a assistance aired and Huntsville as in a i n locating shot telephone. stations Broadcasting authorities had requesting shooting, Jackson, a "the t e l e v i s i o n the l o c a l p o l i c e suspect had on t e l e v i s i o n collectively i n d i c a t i n g that Jackson public's WAFF, (referred Corporation, stations"), a report gave the and warning the p u b l i c t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c o n s i d e r e d J a c k s o n t o be armed and dangerous. least The t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s r e b r o a d c a s t t h e segment a t three television t i m e s on d i f f e r e n t n e w s c a s t s . stations also broadcasted In addition, a segment reporting Jackson's apprehension by the a u t h o r i t i e s the f o l l o w i n g Ultimately, the day. t h e c h a r g e s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t J a c k s o n were d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l e d t h a t he h a d n o t b e e n i n t h e a r e a when t h e s h o o t i n g o c c u r r e d and t h e r e f o r e b e e n t h e gunman. a report despite on The t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s the d i s m i s s a l 2 n o t have f a i l e d to broadcast of the charges h i s request i n w r i t i n g that could against t h e y do s o . Jackson, 2110643 Jackson then sued the t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s i n t h e C o l b e r t C i r c u i t C o u r t , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e y h a d defamed h i m b y r e p o r t i n g t h a t he h a d b e e n i n v o l v e d i n a c r i m e , b y r e p o r t i n g t h a t he was b e l i e v e d t o be armed a n d d a n g e r o u s , and by f a i l i n g on against the d i s m i s s a l of the charges him. to report 1 Jackson a t t a c h e d t o h i s c o m p l a i n t t h e l e t t e r he s e n t t o t h e t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s r e q u e s t i n g e i t h e r a r e t r a c t i o n o r t h a t t h e y r e p o r t on the d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t h i m a n d what a p p e a r s t o be t h e r e c o r d o f t h e e n t i r e c r i m i n a l c a s e a g a i n s t h i m , w h i c h was dismissed. Jackson's television stations complaint pursuant t o Rule P., f o r f a i l u r e transfer The the moved to dismiss 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , A l a . R. C i v . to state a claim, or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , to action to Madison County. The television J a c k s o n a l s o sued a l o c a l newspaper, t h e Northwest A l a b a m i a n , a n d s e v e r a l f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t i e s . Jackson and t h e N o r t h w e s t A l a b a m i a n r e a c h e d a s e t t l e m e n t a n d f i l e d a j o i n t s t i p u l a t i o n of d i s m i s s a l of the claims against the Northwest Alabamian. See R u l e 4 1 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. Thus, the Northwest Alabamian i s not a party t o t h i s appeal. F u r t h e r m o r e , no p a r t i e s were s u b s t i t u t e d f o r t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t i e s b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f t h e j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g t h e claims against the remaining defendants, the t e l e v i s i o n stations. We n o t e t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f i c t i t i o u s l y named p a r t i e s i n J a c k s o n ' s c o m p l a i n t does n o t p r e v e n t f i n a l i t y of t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See R u l e 4 ( f ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; G r i f f i n v. P r i m e H e a l t h c a r e C o r p . , 3 So. 2d 892 n.1 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . 1 3 2110643 stations attached to their b r o a d c a s t s t h a t formed motions DVD r e c o r d i n g s of the the b a s i s of Jackson's a c t i o n a g a i n s t them. In argued their motions first that published any to dismiss, Jackson false had statements the t e l e v i s i o n not alleged about that him. The stations they had television s t a t i o n s f u r t h e r a r g u e d t h a t t h e i r b r o a d c a s t s were p r i v i l e g e d under A l a . Code privileged 1975, any " f a i r § 13A-11-161, and i m p a r t i a l which report" protects o f , among o t h e r t h i n g s , " t h e i s s u a n c e o f any w a r r a n t [ o r ] t h e a r r e s t p e r s o n f o r any c a u s e complaint to assert the and his arrest because I n r e s p o n s e , J a c k s o n amended h i s although the i n i t i a l r e p o r t i n g of were privileged under § 13A-11-161, the s t a t i o n s were no l o n g e r e n t i t l e d t o t h e p r i v i l e g e (1) e i t h e r they had f a i l e d to broadcast a report on d i s m i s s a l of the charges a g a i n s t Jackson, p r o v i n g a c t u a l malice, the that, o f any p o l i c e s e a r c h f o r him, t h e c r i m i n a l charges a g a i n s t him, television the " as (2) o r t h e y h a d f a i l e d t o r e p o r t on t h e d i s m i s s a l o f charges responded and t h u s " r e m o v e d " t h e p r i v i l e g e . to the t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s ' motions Jackson also t o d i s m i s s and f i l e d h i s own a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t o f t h a t r e s p o n s e , i n w h i c h 4 2110643 he s t a t e d t h a t he had "print a requested and retraction" t h a t the the that television television stations stations had f a i l e d t o do so d e s p i t e b e i n g p r o v i d e d " i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h t h e y c o u l d use the to c l e a r [Jackson's] name," i n c l u d i n g t h e n o t e s i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s who After the Colbert c l e a r e d him Circuit Court of the of charges. entered an order t r a n s f e r r i n g the a c t i o n t o the Madison C i r c u i t Court i n June 2011, the Madison Circuit Court granted s t a t i o n s ' m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s i n F e b r u a r y 2012. appealed to t h i s court. On l o s t any by appeal, Jackson argues t o r e p o r t on television Jackson timely affirm. p r i v i l e g e t h a t t h e y may failing him. We the that the have had television stations u n d e r § 13A-11-161 the d i s m i s s a l of the charges He f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t § 13A-11-161 p r o v i d e s against a basis for a cause of a c t i o n f o r the t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s ' f a i l u r e , a f t e r request, Jackson. not to The consider report on the television any d i s m i s s a l of that the charges s t a t i o n s argue t h a t t h i s against court need p o s s i b l e l i m i t to the p r i v i l e g e p r o v i d e d § 13A-11-161 b e c a u s e J a c k s o n ' s c l a i m s allege the broadcasts f a i l b e c a u s e he d i d contained false in not statements. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s a r g u e , § 13A-11-161 does 5 2110643 not p r o v i d e a p r i v a t e cause of a c t i o n f o r defamation the failure to r e t r a c t o r t o r e p o r t on based on the c o n c l u s i o n of an investigation. We first under Rule summary note 12(b)(6) judgment t h a t the t r i a l and in d i d not, favor of c o u r t d i s m i s s e d the as J a c k s o n the argues, television A l t h o u g h t h e t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s d i d i n c l u d e DVD the broadcasts dismiss, case, the convert summary at issue inclusion the judgment. as of exhibits those motions to Because to exhibits dismiss the exhibits enter a stations. r e c o r d i n g s of their motions d i d not, into action motions provided in to this for by a the t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s were " r e f e r r e d t o i n , and a r e c e n t r a l t o , [Jackson's] complaint," not the i n c l u s i o n of those e x h i b i t s d i d c o n v e r t t h e m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s t o m o t i o n s f o r a summary judgment. 1032, Donoghue v. A m e r i c a n N a t ' l 1035-36 ( A l a . 2002) (embracing I n s . Co., 838 So. and q u o t i n g t h e r u l e s e t o u t i n W i l s o n v. F i r s t U n i o n N a t ' l Bank o f G e o r g i a , 716 So. 722, 726 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998)). t h e r e f o r e , g o v e r n e d by t h e Our 2d standard of review i s , following: "'"On appeal, a d i s m i s s a l i s not e n t i t l e d to a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s . The a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w u n d e r R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P . ] , i s w h e t h e r , when t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e c o m p l a i n t a r e 6 2d 2110643 v i e w e d most s t r o n g l y i n t h e p l e a d e r ' s favor, i t appears t h a t the p l e a d e r c o u l d p r o v e any s e t o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t would e n t i t l e [ h i m ] t o r e l i e f . In making t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h i s C o u r t does not consider whether the plaintiff will ultimately p r e v a i l , b u t o n l y w h e t h e r [ h e ] may p o s s i b l y p r e v a i l . We n o t e t h a t a R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) d i s m i s s a l i s p r o p e r o n l y when i t a p p e a r s b e y o n d d o u b t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f can p r o v e no s e t o f f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e c l a i m t h a t would e n t i t l e the p l a i n t i f f to r e l i e f . " ' " Donoghue, 838 98, 104 So. 2d 397, As was 2d a t 1036 299 noted had v. Bobo, 659 i n t u r n Nance v. So. Matthews, 2d 622 (Ala. 1993)). above, Jackson defamed h i m w a n t e d by by alleged that broadcasting armed and dangerous, the the t h e p o l i c e a u t h o r i t i e s , by considered reports ( q u o t i n g C.B. ( A l a . 1995), q u o t i n g stations being So. television reports of his reporting that and by he broadcasting of h i s a r r e s t . "'"The e l e m e n t s o f a c a u s e o f a c t i o n f o r d e f a m a t i o n a r e : 1) a f a l s e and d e f a m a t o r y s t a t e m e n t c o n c e r n i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f ; 2) an u n p r i v i l e g e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f t h a t s t a t e m e n t t o a t h i r d p a r t y ; 3) f a u l t a m o u n t i n g a t l e a s t t o n e g l i g e n c e ; and 4) e i t h e r a c t i o n a b i l i t y o f t h e s t a t e m e n t i r r e s p e c t i v e o f s p e c i a l harm [ ( p e r s e ) ] o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s p e c i a l harm c a u s e d by t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of the statement [ ( p e r q u o d ) ] . " ' " D u d l e y v. (Ala. Mfg. Bass A n g l e r s C i v . App. Co., 619 2000) So. 2d S p o r t s m a n S o c ' y , 777 (quoting D r i l l 1280, 1289 7 Parts So. 2d 135, & S e r v . Co. ( A l a . 1993), q u o t i n g v. in 140 Joy turn 2110643 McCaig v. T a l l a d e g a Publ'g Co., 544 So. 2d 875, 877 (Ala. 1989)). Jackson's serve main to protect privileged presented here; protect i s that the t e l e v i s i o n reports not argument under the § 13A-11-161 does n o t s t a t i o n s by making particular circumstances t h a t i s , J a c k s o n a r g u e s t h a t t h e s t a t u t e does the t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s because they failed to r e p o r t on t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t h i m . is c o r r e c t t h a t no A l a b a m a c a s e h a s e v e r p o r t i o n o f § 13A-11-161, w h i c h , a t f i r s t support its their J a c k s o n ' s argument t o a p o i n t . construed Jackson the l a s t r e a d , does a p p e a r t o The s t a t u t e r e a d s , i n entirety: "The p u b l i c a t i o n o f a f a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l r e p o r t o f t h e r e t u r n o f any i n d i c t m e n t , t h e i s s u a n c e o f a n y w a r r a n t , t h e a r r e s t o f any p e r s o n f o r any cause o r the f i l i n g o f any a f f i d a v i t , p l e a d i n g o r o t h e r document i n a n y c r i m i n a l o r c i v i l p r o c e e d i n g i n a n y c o u r t , o r o f a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l r e p o r t o f t h e c o n t e n t s t h e r e o f , o r o f a n y c h a r g e o f c r i m e made t o any j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r o r body, o r o f a n y r e p o r t o f any g r a n d j u r y , o r o f a n y i n v e s t i g a t i o n made b y a n y legislative c o m m i t t e e , o r o t h e r p u b l i c body o r o f f i c e r , s h a l l be p r i v i l e g e d , u n l e s s i t be p r o v e d t h a t t h e same was p u b l i s h e d w i t h a c t u a l m a l i c e , o r t h a t t h e defendant has r e f u s e d o r n e g l e c t e d t o p u b l i s h i n t h e same manner i n w h i c h t h e p u b l i c a t i o n complained of appeared, a reasonable e x p l a n a t i o n or c o n t r a d i c t i o n t h e r e o f by t h e p l a i n t i f f , o r t h a t t h e p u b l i s h e r h a s r e f u s e d upon t h e w r i t t e n r e q u e s t o f the plaintiff to publish the subsequent 8 2110643 determination of such suit, action or investigation." § 13A-11-161 the (emphasis added). that p r i v i l e g e p r o v i d e d i n the s t a t u t e would not e x i s t i f the publisher f a i l e d t o p u b l i s h t h e r e s u l t o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n -- "[t]he publication of a f a i r i s s u a n c e o f any w a r r a n t cause the A l t h o u g h i t does a p p e a r and i m p a r t i a l r e p o r t o f ... t h e [ o r ] t h e a r r e s t o f any p e r s o n f o r any ... s h a l l be p r i v i l e g e d , u n l e s s i t be p r o v e d publisher plaintiff has r e f u s e d to publish upon the written t h e subsequent s u i t , action or i n v e s t i g a t i o n " stations that or we a g r e e w i t h t h e t e l e v i s i o n the parameters amended argue, complaint does nowhere he complaint, of the Jackson admits i n Jackson's state s t a t e m e n t s made i n t h e b r o a d c a s t s were f a l s e . amended such t o decide t h i s case. As t h e t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s complaint that request of the determination of we n e e d n o t d e l v e i n t o fair-report statute ... that, that the Indeed, i n h i s a t the time the b r o a d c a s t s were made, t h e t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s were c o v e r e d b y the with p r i v i l e g e extended u n d e r § 13A-11-161. the t e l e v i s i o n stations that Thus, we Jackson conceded agree that the b r o a d c a s t s were " f a i r a n d i m p a r t i a l r e p o r t [ s ] " o f t h e c h a r g e s against him and o f h i s a r r e s t 9 on t h o s e charges. I f the 2110643 broadcasts were conceded t o have been "fair and i m p a r t i a l r e p o r t [ s ] , " i t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e y were a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t s made b a s e d on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n during an shooting. 1212 s u p p l i e d by t h e p o l i c e a u t h o r i t i e s i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a complaint arising from t h e See W i l s o n v. B i r m i n g h a m P o s t Co., 482 So. 2d 1209, ( A l a . 1986) ( f i n d i n g t h e news r e p o r t at issue i n that c a s e t o be c o n d i t i o n a l l y p r i v i l e g e d u n d e r § 13A-11-161 b e c a u s e "it accurately report[ed] statements made by [witnesses] d u r i n g an o f f i c i a l p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as r e f l e c t e d i n t h e official police statements incident even those report"). Accurate t h a t m i g h t be n e g a t i v e truthful i n nature and harmful t o one's r e p u t a t i o n claim. See Mooneyham v. S t a t e Bd. o f C h i r o p r a c t i c E x a m ' r s , 802 will or not support a defamation So. 2d 200, 203 ( A l a . 2001) ( a f f i r m i n g t h e d i s m i s s a l o f a d e f a m a t i o n c l a i m when t h e a l l e g a t i o n s were t h a t t h e p u b l i s h e d statements The trial were a c c u r a t e court a t the time therefore they properly were published). dismissed Jackson's defamation claims against both t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s . J a c k s o n ' s o t h e r c o n t e n t i o n on a p p e a l , statement, action i s that for "failure § 13A-11-161 to retract" 10 creates b a s e d on h i s i s s u e a p r i v a t e cause o f o r , more p r o p e r l y i n this 2110643 case, "failure to report investigation." The the cases subsequent d e t e r m i n a t i o n from other jurisdictions J a c k s o n r e l i e s upon t o s u p p o r t h i s a r g u m e n t do n o t an that involve c r e a t i o n o f a p r i v a t e c a u s e o f a c t i o n i n an A l a b a m a scheme; t h u s , we of f i n d them c o m p l e t e l y i n a p p o s i t e . the statutory Because of t h a t f a i l u r e , J a c k s o n ' s argument on t h i s i s s u e f a i l s t o c o m p l y with Rule 28(a)(10), A l a . t h i s ground alone. LLC, 998 So. 2d See 1042, However, t h e R. issue. claiming As 1058 the (Ala. civil for J a c k s o n has the trial court's affirm of a n o t p r e s e n t e d any t o impose c i v i l l i a b i l i t y So. the 2d a out, II, intent statute." 309, merit- 311 to to scheme impose American (Ala. 2001). e v i d e n c e of a l e g i s l a t i v e intent on m e d i a o u t l e t s who f a i l to report on t h e s u b s e q u e n t d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . t h e e x t e n t J a c k s o n a r g u e s t h a t h i s a c t i o n was television on "[o]ne a statutory legislative a v i o l a t i o n of v. M c D o n a l d , 812 PRS j u d g m e n t as point r i g h t of a c t i o n w i t h i n evidence Co. could 2008). television stations must show c l e a r Auto. Ins. We t e l e v i s i o n s t a t i o n s have g i v e n us a private liability App. W h i t e Sands Group, L.L.C. v. based ground f o r a f f i r m i n g this Civ. p r e m i s e d on s t a t i o n s ' f a i l u r e u n d e r § 13A-11-161 t o r e p o r t 11 To the on 2110643 the dismissal of the charges against h i m , he h a s f a i l e d to state a claim f o r r e l i e f ; accordingly, dismissal premised of Jackson's action on § 13A-11-161. insofar we a f f i r m t h e as i t p u r p o r t s See C.B. v. Bobo, clearly t o be 659 So. 2d a t 102. APPLICATION GRANTED; NO-OPINION ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE OF AUGUST 17, 2 0 1 2 , WITHDRAWN; OPINION Thompson, P . J . and Pittman, concur. 12 SUBSTITUTED; Bryan, AFFIRMED. a n d Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.