Joseph J. Baldine v. Sharon Herald Company, 391 F.2d 703, 3rd Cir. (1968)
Joseph J. Baldine v. Sharon Herald Company, 391 F.2d 703, 3rd Cir. (1968)
Joseph J. Baldine v. Sharon Herald Company, 391 F.2d 703, 3rd Cir. (1968)
2d 703
Plaintiff, Joseph J. Baldine, brought this libel action in the District Court to
recover 'general' and 'punitive' damages from defendant, Sharon Herald
Company, a corporation which owns and publishes a daily newspaper in
Sharon, Mercer County, Pennsylvania, circulated in the Sharon area in western
Pennsylvania, adjacent to the Pennsylvania-Ohio border, and in certain
contiguous eastern Ohio counties.1
On Saturday, October 24, 1964 and Saturday, October 31, 1964, either plaintiff
or his supporters caused to be published in defendant's newspaper two paid
advertisements in which plaintiff's accomplishments as county commissioner
were lauded and his re-election urged. Defendant published these
advertisements exactly as they were presented to it, without any investigation
into the accuracy or truthfulness of the claims stated in them.
Late Friday evening, October 30, 1964, defendant's retail advertising manager,
Stephen Krist was telephoned by one Edward Gaines and asked whether a
political advertisement could be placed in defendant's newspaper. Krist replied
that it was possible, but that the advertisement would have to be brought to him
early the next morning so that it could be 'correctly processed for publication.'
The next morning, Saturday, October 31, 1964, Gaines brought the
advertisement in question to Krist at defendant's newspaper office. Gaines paid
for its publication with a check signed by Doctor W. A. James, one of plaintiff's
opponents in the county commissioner's race who was endorsed in the
advertisement, and told Krist that he was acting at the instance of James. Prior
to this time, Krist had not seen the advertisement nor had he been made aware
of its contents.
Harshman testified that he did not know who brought the advertisement in for
publication; that he gave his approval because he believed that the
11
Because defendant's newspaper 'hit the streets' at 1:30 in the afternoon, it was
too late to publish the advertisement in the Saturday, October 31, 1964 edition,
and since the newspaper was not published on Sunday, the advertisement was
run in the next edition on Monday, November 2, 1964.
12
13
There was evidence that about a year earlier, on October 16, 1963, defendant
ran a news story in its paper which praised plaintiff's conduct as County
Commissioner and which contained information at variance with one of the
At trial, which was limited to the issue of liability, the jury was instructed in
accordance with what the trial judge believed to be the teaching of New York
Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), and
its progeny. In reply to four 'Special Verdicts' (interrogatories), the jury found
that: (1) some of the matters set forth in the advertisement were 'false'; (2) none
of the false statements were made with 'actual malice'; (3) none of the false
statements were made 'with knowledge of their falsity'; and (4) such statements
were made and published 'with reckless disregard of whether they were true or
false'.2
15
The trial judge 'construed' the jury's verdict to be a finding of liability, but
ordered the entry of judgment N.O.V. in defendant's favor, stating:
16
'Substantial evidence exists to support the finding that the publication was in
part false as found by the jury. 'I must conclude, however, that considering all
the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom most
favorable to the plaintiff that as a matter of law the evidence is not sufficient to
support the finding that the publication was made with reckless disregard of the
truth or falsity of the political advertisement.'3
17
18
19
Plaintiff here urges that the trial court erred in entering judgment N.O.V. in
defendant's favor, and in denying its motion to reinstate the jury's verdict,
because, in its view, there was 'adequate' evidence to support the jury's finding
that defendant published the advertisement with reckless disregard as to
whether the statements therein were true or false.
20
Defendant, in reply, contends that the trial court did not err in finding the
evidence insufficient.
21
21
22
23
The stated test 'is not keyed to ordinary care; defeasance of the privilege is
conditioned, not on mere negligence, but on reckless disregard for the truth'.
Garrison v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 79, 85 S.Ct. 209, 218, 13 L.Ed.2d
125 (1964), cited with approval in Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, at page 84,
86 S.Ct. 669, 15 L.Ed.2d 597 (1966).
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff makes much of the fact that defendant's employees did not make any
attempt to determine the accuracy of the advertisement or to verify the
sponsorship of its purported signatories and contends that their failure to do so
supports the jury's finding of recklessness. The short answer to this contention
is that mere investigatory failures alone are insufficient to satisfy the New York
Times standard, at least where, as in the present case, a contemplated
publication comes from a known and reliable source.
30
What was said in Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, at page 86, 86 S.Ct. 669, at
page 676 (1966), is pertinently significant here:
31
'Society has a pervasive and strong interest in preventing and redressing attacks
upon reputation. But in cases like the present, there is tension between this
interest and the values nurtured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The
thrust of New York Times is that when interests in public discussion are
particularly strong, as they were in that case, the Constitution limits the
protections afforded by the law of defamation.'
32
For the reasons stated the October 25, 1966 Memorandum Order of the District
Court, 280 F.Supp. 440 entering judgment in favor of Sharon Herald Company,
defendant, against Joseph J. Baldine, plaintiff, together with costs, will be
affirmed.
33
34
MR. BALDINE:
35
36
37
YOU DID NOT obtain the School for Retarded Children, as you claimed.
38
WHO DID? The mothers of the retarded children. The mothers of the retarded
took all the preliminary steps which were essential before the people of
Trumbull County could vote on this project. They started the first classes. They
obtained state approval and state financial help. They created the Trumbull
County Council for Retarded Children.
39
YOU DID NOT build the Chronically Ill Hospital, as you claimed.
40
WHO DID? The Trumbull County Tuberculosis Hospital Board of Trustees-with a tax levy voted by Trumbull County Taxpayers and Federal matching
funds.
41
YOU DID NOT pay off $500,000 of the Welfare Debt, as you claimed.
42
WHO DID? NOBODY. The Welfare deficit you inherited as of December 31,
1960 was $21,934.39. IT IS NOW $1,240,000.00. Mr. Baldine, you claim to be
a successful County Commissioner.
WHAT ABOUT:
43
Spending $10,000 of our tax money to hire an out of town architect to draw
plans which were NEVER USED?
44
Spending $15,000 of our tax money on attorney's fees to fight your own
prosecuting attorney, unsuccessfully?
45
Spending at least $127,000 of our tax money at the Brookfield Radar Site
without one cent of competitive bidding? The delay in the new Mahoning River
We're sorry, Mr. Baldine, but we cannot accept your claims, however modestly
they were made.
48
The Opinion of the District Court is reported at 280 F.Supp. 440 (W.D.Pa.
1966)