Opinion ID: 1505898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Malfunction Statement and Removal Statement

Text: Based on the evidence at trial, a reasonable juror could conclude that the Starchaser ride did not malfunction and that operator error did not equate with ride malfunction. At trial, Kentucky Kingdom's CEO, Ed Hart, testified that the ride never malfunctioned. WHAS-TV's corporate representative testified that the statement that the Starchaser ride malfunctioned was an inaccurate statement. Additionally, the WHAS-TV reporter who covered the story testified that mechanical malfunction and human error are two different things. However, I agree with the Court of Appeals' finding that WHAS-TV did not know the Malfunction Statement was false at the time of its telecasts and that WHAS-TV did not act with a reckless disregard for the truth. The Court of Appeals explained: Kentucky Kingdom's characterization of the accident differed from WHAS-TV's. Kentucky Kingdom maintained that the ride did not malfunction, but rather that operator error caused the accident. Kentucky Kingdom informed WHAS-TV of its interpretation of what caused the accident. We do not believe, however, that this difference in characterization is sufficient to establish that the publisher [WHAS-TV] of the defamatory falsehood [had] entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the published matter. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish that WHAS-TV acted with actual malice. Court of Appeals Opinion at 7 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks and citation footnote omitted). Thus, the statement was not made with actual malice, and the jury's verdict as to this statement should be reversed. I also believe that a reasonable juror could conclude that the Removal Statement was false. The Court of Appeals explained: In 1996, WHAS-TV reported that Kentucky Kingdom had removed a key component of the Starchaser. A WHAS-TV reporter gathered this information from deposition testimony given in the Noonan case and from a conversation he had with an employee of the company the reporter thought (incorrectly, as it turned out) had manufactured the ride. Kentucky Kingdom's technical services manager stated in his deposition that a brake on the Starchaser was not used. This brake was part of the ride's dispatch system. The employee informed the reporter that a braking system was necessary on the ride and the technical services manager stated that the accident would not have occurred if the brake was in use. Trial testimony revealed that there was some confusion as to what braking system the employee referred: the dispatch system brake or the reducing brakes. The WHAS-TV reporter testified at trial that the words removed and key component were his own words and that those words were inaccurate. Based on the foregoing, we believe that evidence, although conflicting, supports the jury's finding that the removed a key component report was false. Id. at 7-8. [2] Again, however, I agree with the Court of Appeals' holding that the statement was not made with actual malice. The Court of Appeals explained: Once again, however, we are unconvinced that WHAS-TV acted with actual malice. The reporter testified that he used those words to inform the audience that the brake was removed from the process, removed from the procedure, was not being used. We do not believe that the distinction between removed and did not use is constitutionally sufficient to establish [actual malice]. Id. at 8-9. Although I do not agree with Justice Cooper's conclusion as to the truth of the Malfunction Statement and the Removal Statement, I believe his discussion of the Malfunction Statement and Removal Statement further bolsters the conclusion that WHAS-TV did not make these two statements with actual malice. Thus, I would affirm the Court of Appeals and reverse the jury's verdict as to these two statements.