Case Name: The TRIBUNE COMPANY, Paul Hogan, Joseph Registrato, and William Sloat, Petitioners, v. Leonard D. LEVIN and General Energy Devices, Inc., Respondents
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-09-13
Citations: 458 So. 2d 243
Docket Number: No. 63217
Parties: The TRIBUNE COMPANY, Paul Hogan, Joseph Registrato, and William Sloat, Petitioners, v. Leonard D. LEVIN and General Energy Devices, Inc., Respondents.
Judges: BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 458
Pages: 243–245

Head Matter:
The TRIBUNE COMPANY, Paul Hogan, Joseph Registrato, and William Sloat, Petitioners, v. Leonard D. LEVIN and General Energy Devices, Inc., Respondents.
No. 63217.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 13, 1984.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 27, 1984.
Sanford L. Bohrer and Charles V. Sena-tore of Thomson, Zeder, Bohrer, Werth, Adorno & Razook, Miami, for petitioners.
0. Stephen Thacker of Wilder & Thacker, Clearwater, John R. Ferguson of Peabody, Lambert & Meyers, and C. Michael Deese of Webster, Chamberlain & Bean, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Parker D. Thomson of Paul & Thomson, Miami, amicus curiae for The Miami Herald Pub. Co.
Joseph W. Little, Gainesville, for amicus curiae.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We have before us Tribune Co. v. Levin, 426 So.2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), pursuant to a certified question of great public importance from the Second District Court of Appeal: whether the negligence standard [as applied in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Ane, 423 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) ] is appropriate as a basis of recovery in a defamation suit brought by a private plaintiff against a newspaper. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.
The Tampa Tribune published two articles about Levin's personal activities and his business activities with General Energy Devices, Inc., a solar heating manufacturer. Levin and the company as co-plaintiffs brought a libel action and got a jury award of compensatory and punitive damages. After a jury poll revealed that not all the jurors agreed regarding the punitive damages award, the trial court struck that portion of the verdict and entered judgment on the compensatory award. The district court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the negligence standard, and that actual malice on the part of the newspaper was not required for the plaintiffs to recover compensatory damages. In so holding, the Second District Court agreed with the Third District Court in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Ane, 423 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). In Ane the Third District Court of Appeal certified the following question:
[Wjhether a plaintiff [who is neither a public official nor public figure] in a libel action is required under Florida law to establish as an element of his cause of action that the defendant published the alleged false and defamatory statements sued upon with "actual malice" as defined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) [i.e., either with knowledge of [their] falsity or with reckless disregard of [their] truth or falsity] when the alleged false and defamatory statements relate to an event of public or general concern.
Ane, 423 So.2d at 378. In our decision today in Ane, 458 So.2d 239 (Fla.1984), we answered the certified question therein in the negative and approved the district court's application of the negligence standard. Accordingly, we answer the instant question affirmatively and approve the decision of the district court.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and SHAW, JJ., concur.
McDONÁLD, J., dissents with an opinion, in which EHRLICH, J., concurs.