Opinion ID: 564894
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Remaining Theories

Text: 14 As discussed above, plaintiffs must look to the doctrines of copyright, libel, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and mistake to form the basis of a claim against the defendant publisher. Unless it is assumed that the publisher is a guarantor of the accuracy of an author's statements of fact, plaintiffs have made no case under any of these theories other than possibly negligence. Guided by the First Amendment and the values embodied therein, we decline to extend liability under this theory to the ideas and expression contained in a book. 15 In order for negligence to be actionable, there must be a legal duty to exercise due care. 6 B. Witkin, Summary of California Law, Torts Sec. 732 (9th ed. 1988). The plaintiffs urge this court that the publisher had a duty to investigate the accuracy of The Encyclopedia of Mushrooms' contents. We conclude that the defendants have no duty to investigate the accuracy of the contents of the books it publishes. A publisher may of course assume such a burden, 7 but there is nothing inherent in the role of publisher or the surrounding legal doctrines to suggest that such a duty should be imposed on publishers. Indeed the cases uniformly refuse to impose such a duty. 8 Were we tempted to create this duty, the gentle tug of the First Amendment and the values embodied therein would remind us of the social costs. 9 16 Finally, plaintiffs ask us to find that a publisher should be required to give a warning 1) that the information in the book is not complete and that the consumer may not fully rely on it or 2) that this publisher has not investigated the text and cannot guarantee its accuracy. With respect to the first, a publisher would not know what warnings, if any, were required without engaging in a detailed analysis of the factual contents of the book. This would force the publisher to do exactly what we have said he has no duty to do--that is, independently investigate the accuracy of the text. We will not introduce a duty we have just rejected by renaming it a mere warning label. With respect to the second, such a warning is unnecessary given that no publisher has a duty as a guarantor. 17 For the reasons outlined above, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.