Title: C. Delores & William Tucker h/w v. Philadelphia Daily News, et al. (Concurring And Dissenting Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 47EAP2001
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: April 29, 2004

[J-148-2002]] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT C. DELORES TUCKER AND WILLIAM TUCKER, HER HUSBAND , v. PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPERS, INC.; KNIGHT-RIDDER, INC.; SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION REPORTER; ANDREWS PUBLICATIONS, INC.; LEGAL COMMUNICATION, LTD.; LEGAL INTELLIGENCER; MERIDIAN VENTURE PARTNERS, L.P.; BASELINE II, INC.; AND THE ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION REPORTER APPEAL OF: PHILA. DAILY NEWS, PHILA. NEWSPAPERS, INC.; KNIGHT- RIDDER, INC.; LEGAL COMMUNICATIONS, LTD.; LEGAL INTELLIGENCER : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 47 EAP 2001 Appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court, entered July 28, 2000, reargument denied, September 6, 2000, at No. 2121 EDA 1999, which reversed and remanded the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 003644 July Term 1998, entered June 16, 1999. 757 A.2d 938 (Pa. Super. 2000) ARGUED: October 21, 2002 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE NIGRO DECIDED: April 29, 2004 I join the majority insofar as it reasons and concludes that the published statement that the Tuckers claimed $10 million for damages to their sexual relationship was capable of a defamatory meaning. However, I disagree with the majority's decision to dismiss the Tuckers' complaint with leave to replead "only in the event that the Tuckers are able to allege, in good faith, that their attorney unequivocally told these specific Appellant- [J-148-2002] - 2 newspapers that the loss of consortium claim did not include a claim for loss of sexual relations." Slip Op. at 39. In my view, at this early stage in the proceedings, before any discovery has even taken place, the majority places too great a burden on the Tuckers to plead specific facts underlying their claim of actual malice and, as a result, prematurely limits the facts on which they will be permitted to rely. As the Superior Court below recognized, "proving actual malice calls into question the state of mind of the one who published the allegedly defamatory statement and, therefore, the issue is not one that readily lends itself to summary disposition." 757 A.2d 938, 945-46 (Pa. Super. 2000). Given that reality, I would simply overrule the preliminary objections regarding actual malice and would give the Tuckers the opportunity in discovery to uncover facts other than those already available to establish the Appellant-newspapers' reckless disregard for the truth. Mr. Justice Castille joins.