Opinion ID: 6109814
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Father's Defamation Claim

Text: The trial court found for Father as to two categories of statements Grandfather made about him to DFPS: (1) the false allegation that he abused his daughters and intended to brainwash them, and (2) the assertion that, relative to Mother, he had substandard parenting abilities and was a nut. The appellate court reversed, finding no proximate cause between these statements and Father's injuries. We agree, but for different reasons, at least in part. In a pretrial hearing, the trial court struck the portion of Father's defamation pleading relating to Grandfather's statements about parenting skills and Father being a nut because they were added after the pleading deadline. A stricken claim is considered unpleaded. 58 The trial court thus erred in awarding Father defamation damages based on these statements. We now turn to the portion of the trial court's defamation judgment based on statements that Father had abused the twins and would attempt to brainwash them. Actionable defamation requires (1) publication of a false statement of fact to a third party, (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff, (3) with the requisite degree of fault, and (4) that proximately caused damages. 59 We agree with the court of appeals that no evidence exists that Grandfather's statements proximately caused Father's injuries. As to the cause-in-fact component of proximate cause, a defendant's action is the cause in fact of an injury if it was a substantial factor in causing the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred. 60 Grandfather's statement to DFPS was but a small part in the plethora of negative accusations against him by Mother and Bruno, most of which concerned false sexual-abuse allegations against his sons. Indeed, as the trial court found, Mother's defamation and wrongful detention of Mike was the primary and root cause of damages awarded in this judgment. Father linked none of his damages to Grandfather's specific statements, instead focusing on factors such as the potential grand jury indictment and loss of custody of the boys from Mother's and Bruno's false allegations. Based on Father's testimony about what caused his damages and the overwhelming amount of other circumstances impacting Father's  reputation and mental state, we conclude Grandfather's statements were not a substantial factor in causing Father's injuries. 61