Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Under Florida's defamation law, a prospective plaintiff is required to give a media defendant notice five days before initiating a civil action. § 770.01, Fla. Stat. (2007). The notice must specify the alleged false and defamatory statements contained in the article or broadcast. Id. Further, section 770.02, Florida Statutes (2007), limits the amount of damages a plaintiff may recover where: (1) the statements were published in good faith; (2) the statements were false due to an honest mistake of facts; (3) there were reasonable grounds f...

...failure to do so, final judgment for defendants was entered. The major part of plaintiff's argument, upon this appeal, is directed to the constitutionality vel non of Chapter 16070, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1933, now appearing as Sections 770.01 and 770.02, Florida Statutes, same F.S.A., by which it is provided as follows: "770.01 * * * Before any civil action is brought for publication, in a newspaper or periodical, of a libel, the plaintiff shall, at least five days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on defendant, specifying the article, and the statements therein, which he alleges to be false and defamatory." "770.02 * * * If it appears upon the trial that said article was published in good faith, that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts, and that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article were true, a...

...13, ibid., provides that "every person may fully speak and write his sentiments on all subjects being responsible for the abuse of that right * * *." Plaintiff's questions going to the constitutionality of the statute may be stated as follows: 1. Is Section 770.02 unconstitutional in that it (a) denies punitive damages to a plaintiff under the circumstances therein specified and (b) limits the recovery under such circumstances to "actual damages"? *414 2....

...No formal charge or arrest was filed or made. The ultimate determination of the matter was accidental injury. On February 18, 1961, the Tribune Company, after demand, published a retraction and apology in both the Times [4] and the Tribune [5] pursuant to section 770.02, Florida Statutes....

...y cause irreparable injury which cannot be remedied on appeal. Briggs. We grant certiorari in this case because compliance with the trial court order might result in republication of a libelous statement that could irreparably injure appellants. See § 770.02, Fla....

...has come to demand "Today's news today". A reporter is expected to determine the facts in a matter of hours or minutes and it is only reasonable to expect that mistakes will be made. In recognition of this fact, our state legislature has provided in Section 770.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., for correction, apology, or retraction by newspaper....

..." In overdramatizing the news item sub judice, the magazine simply closed its eyes to that portion of our constitution which says, "but shall be responsible for the abuse of that right". The daily newspapers in Florida have not hesitated to retract and correct inadvertent misstatements in accordance with Section 770.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...The court did not hold, as does Laney, that Section 770.01 applies to media and non-media libelees alike, but recognized that the unambiguous language of the statutory condition precedent applies only to media defendants. Ross, 48 So.2d at 414-15. In discussing Ross' equal protection argument with respect to Section 770.02, which in 1950 referred only to newspapers and periodicals, the court reiterated that "[t]he provision for retraction is peculiarly appropriate to newspapers and periodicals, as distinguished from private persons." 48 So.2d at 414....

...In 1976, the statute was amended to include reference to (1) "broadcast" (in addition to "publication"), (2) "other medium" (in addition to "newspaper and periodical"), and (3) "slander" (in addition to "libel"). Ch. 76-123, § 1, Laws of Fla. The following additions were also made to Section 770.02: "or broadcast station" in the section's heading; "or broadcast" (as an addition to "article"); and a reference to correction, apology, or retraction in the case of a broadcast....

...After a pre-trial conference the case was tried before a jury which awarded the plaintiff a verdict of $1,500. The question inherent in the controversy is the presence or lack of testimony supporting the judgment for the amount the jury fixed in view of the corrective statement the newspaper published and its efficacy under Section 770.02, Florida Statutes 1951, and F.S.A., which provides that where an honest mistake is made in the publication of news and within a stated period after notice given, pursuant to the preceding section, the paper publishes a retraction of ce...

...el based on an article so retracted, shall be discontinued and barred." Reverting to the hypothetical inquiries posed by appellee, it is observed that similar questions might well be posed as to the vagueness of certain provisions of Florida Statute 770.02, F.S.A., viz: "good faith"; "falsity"; "a full and fair correction"; "apology"; "conspicuous place"; and Florida Statute 836.08, F.S.A., viz: "correction"; "apology"; "reasonable grounds"; or "a full and fair correction"....

...1267; Haworth v. Chapmen, 113 Fla. 591, 152 So. 663 (1933); Hanson v. State, 56 So.2d 129 (Fla. 1952); Overstreet v. Blum, 227 So.2d 197 (Fla. 1969); Hancock v. Sapp, 225 So.2d 411 (Fla. 1969); Rich v. Ryals, 212 So.2d 641 (Fla. 1968). [2] Florida Statute 770.02, F.S.A....

...heir allegations of involvement with drugs and seeking a retraction. The letter provided, in pertinent part: Both of these articles are inaccurate as to any involvement with drugs or sale of drugs, ... . Consequently, and pursuant to Florida Statute 770.02 and 836.08 (Sup....

. Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.903(n), (bb). . § 770.02(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (providing that a plaintiff

...may be extremely unfamiliar. If a retraction, correction or apology is issued within a limited time after notice has been given, moreover, and the article or broadcast was published in good faith, plaintiff may only recover actual damages. Fla.Stat. § 770.02....

...r, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory. (emphasis supplied). Section 770.02 allows the defendants to whom section 770.01 is applicable the right to avoid punitive damages by the timely publication of a correction, apology, or retraction....

...sal to dismiss the complaint for the failure to meet this pre-suit requirement. See Bridges v. Williamson, 449 So.2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); see generally Citron v. Shell, 689 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Section 770.01, the notice provision, and section 770.02, the retraction provision, grant valuable rights by allowing certain defendants in defamation actions to avoid punitive damages by the timely publication of a correction, apology or retraction....

...at 415 (emphasis supplied). Plaintiff ignores this language in Ross, while focusing only on language that refers to suits against newspapers as opposed to private persons. Id. at 414. Further, there is nothing in the language of the companion retraction provision, section 770.02, that would limit the protection to the newspaper publisher as distinguished from its reporters, editorial writers and columnists. The retraction provision of subsection 770.02(1), in "the case of a newspaper" provides that a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction......

...In fact, policies on retraction might vary from one newspaper organization to another. Indeed, it is probably more likely that the author of a weekly column, such as defendant here, would actually have the ability to have a retraction printed within her column in compliance with the requirements of section 770.02....

...Even if only the corporate entity, and not the individual reporter, editorial writer or columnist had the power to retract, the issue is not who has the power to retract, but whether a retraction occurs. If a retraction does not timely occur as provided for in section 770.02, the plaintiff may file suit without any limitation on his or her right to recover punitive damages....

...Civil Code: "Plaintiff shall serve upon the publisher, at the place of publication ... a written notice specifying the statements claimed to be libelous and demanding that the same be corrected." Compare Cal. Civ.Code § 48a (emphasis supplied) with § 770.02, Fla....

...r careless manner in reproducing the news dispatch. The court relied on the case of Layne v. Tribune Co., 1933, 108 Fla. 177, 146 So. 234, 236, 86 A.L.R. 466, holding that the principles expressed in that case were not changed by sections 770.01 and 770.02, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....

...case of Layne v. Tribune Company controls the question of law in this case. It is the contention of the appellant, however, that the law applicable is governed not only by Layne v. Tribune Company, supra, but also by Florida Statutes, § 770.01 and § 770.02....

...its publication, or be counted upon as a libel per quod, in order to set up a good cause of action." The main contention of the appellant is that The Miami Herald, after notice from the appellant, failed to follow the provisions of Florida Statutes, § 770.02, F.S.A., in that it actually never made an apology but only quoted from the corrected press dispatch of the United Press and that the headlines were not as conspicuous as they were in the original article....

...and that the complaint did not set up facts which would take it out of the Tribune case. The decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Layne v. Tribune Co., supra, was published February 3, 1933. Chapter 16071, Laws of Florida, 1933 (§ 770.01 and § 770.02, Florida Statutes, 1959, F.S.A.) was passed at the legislative session of 1933, and was, therefore, subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in Layne v....

...paper. We are of the opinion that under the facts of this case the law applicable is that enunciated by the Florida Supreme Court in Layne v. Tribune Company, supra, and that such holding is not affected or changed by Florida Statutes, § 770.01 and § 770.02, F.S.A....

...In 1976, the statute was amended to include reference to (1) “broadcast” (in addition to “publication”), (2) “other medium” (in addition to “newspaper and periodical”), *553 and (3) “slander” (in addition to “libel”). Ch. 76-123, § 1, Laws of Fla. The following additions were also made to Section 770.02: “or broadcast station” in the section’s heading; “or broadcast” (as an addition to “article”); and a reference to correction, apology, or retraction in the case of a broadcast....

...unreasonable restraints be placed upon the working news reporter or the editorial writer. Id. at 1379 (citing Ross, 48 So.2d at 415 ). Moreover, the Maneini court noted that “there is nothing in the language of the companion retraction provision, section 770.02, that would limit the protection to the newspaper publisher ....” Id....

or corrections quickly, as provided for in section 770.02: 770.02. Correction, apology, or retraction

one foreign destination to another." 15 C.F.R. § 770.2. It is not essential, however, that this Court

or corrections quickly, as provided for in section 770.02: 770.02. Correction, apology, or retraction

...Eric Canonico appeals an order dismissing, with prejudice, his defamation lawsuit against various media defendants. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit because Mr. Canonico filed his claim prematurely, before satisfying a presuit notice requirement. See § 770.02, Fla....

...days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory. In conjunction with section 770.01, section 770.02 states: (1) If it appears upon the trial that said article or broadcast was published in good faith; that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts; that there were reasonable grounds for believing that...

...The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff failed to comply with the presuit conditions of section 770.01. Id. The circuit court denied their motion. Id. On certiorari review, we summarized how to construe these statutes: Sections 770.01 and 770.02 work together "to afford newspapers and periodicals an opportunity to make full retraction in order to correct inadvertent errors and mitigate damages, as well as to save them the expense of answering to an unfounded suit for libel." Bridges, 449 So....

...tes and give effect to legislative intent." Anderson v. State, 87 So. 3d 774, 777 (Fla. 2012). As explained in Ross, the notice provided for in section 770.01 and the opportunity to retract the offending statement provided for in section 770.02 go hand in hand. See 48 So. 2d at 415. Section 770.02 explicitly applies only to newspapers, periodicals, and broadcasts—the same types of publications specifically mentioned in section 770.01. Reading sections 770.01 and 770.02 in harmony, it becomes clear that the "other medium" language is not meant to expand the scope of section 770.01 beyond the news media. Id. at 817-18. Applying these principles, the Mazur court concluded that neither the book nor movie company defendants were entitled to the protections of sections 770.01 and 770.02....

...pon the working news reporter or the editorial writer. Mancini, 702 So. 2d at 1378-79 (quoting Ross, 48 So. 2d at 415). Media defendants that publish news quickly can also issue retractions or corrections quickly, as provided for in section 770.02: 770.02....

...-6-  (d) In the case of a newspaper or periodical published less frequently than monthly, in the next issue, provided notice is served no later than 45 days prior to such publication. Sections 770.01 and 770.02 work together "to afford newspapers and periodicals an opportunity to make full retraction in order to correct inadvertent errors and mitigate damages, as well as to save them the expense of answering to an unfounded suit for libel." Bridges, 449 So....

...onize those statutes and give effect to legislative intent." Anderson v. State, 87 So. 3d 774, 777 (Fla. 2012). As explained in Ross, the notice provided for in section 770.01 and the opportunity to retract the offending statement provided for in section 770.02 go hand in hand. See 48 So. 2d at 415. Section 770.02 explicitly applies only to newspapers, periodicals, and broadcasts—the same types of publications specifically mentioned in section 770.01. -8- Reading sections 770.01 and 770.02 in harmony, it becomes clear that the "other medium" language is not meant to expand the scope of section 770.01 beyond the news media....