Title: C. Delores & William Tucker h/w v. Philadelphia Daily News, et al. (Concurring 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, PHILA. 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 Superior Court, entered July 12, 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. ARGUED: October 21, 2002 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: April 29, 2004 I join the majority opinion, except for its determination that a cause of action would be stated upon the filing of an amended complaint alleging some unequivocal communication to Appellant-newspapers that the Tuckers’ loss of spousal consortium claim did not include a claim for loss of sexual relations. Since the Tucker II Complaint was filed as of record and contained a boilerplate claim for loss of consortium, which, by definition encompassed a claim for damage to the Tuckers’ sexual relationship, in my [J-148-2002] - 2 view, knowledge on the part of Appellant-newspapers of some greater demonstrated commitment on the part of the Tuckers to a more restricted damages claim would be necessary to implicate the kind of reckless disregard for the truth essential to a defamation claim in the present circumstances.