Opinion ID: 900097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: public or private figure

Text: [¶ 18] Next, the trial judge must determine if plaintiff is a public figure or official. (In this opinion, public figure includes a public official.) Here a modern libel case reaches a major fork in the road. If the plaintiff is a public figure, plaintiff faces a heavy burden to prove the claim. [¶ 19] A public figure bringing a libel case faces a higher burden of proof than an ordinary civil litigant as a result of the New York Times Rule. This rule prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with `actual malice'that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80, 84 S.Ct. 710, 726, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 706 (1964). The rule further requires that actual malice be shown with convincing clarity, Id. 376 U.S. at 286, 84 S.Ct. at 729, 11 L.Ed.2d at 710, or, in a later formulation, by clear and convincing proof. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3008, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). This rule was later extended to libel suits brought by public figures. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967). [¶ 20] An attempt to extend the New York Times Rule to private individuals occurred when the Supreme Court suggested that the rule should also reach private individuals involved in public concerns or general interests. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 97, 86 S.Ct. 669, 681, 15 L.Ed.2d 597 (1966). This opinion, however, was limited in Gertz, 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789. Writing for the majority, Justice Powell held the Supreme Court would not apply the New York Times Rule to private individuals. Id. at 346, 94 S.Ct. at 3010. Rather, so long as the states did not impose liability without fault, the states may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual. Id. at 347, 94 S.Ct. at 3010. [¶ 21] We followed the New York Times Rule in Janklow v. Viking Press, 459 N.W.2d 415, 419 (S.D.1990). In that case we set forth guidelines that a public figure plaintiff in a libel suit must prove: (1) libel by clear and convincing evidence; (2) more than a defendant's failure to investigate; (3) that the defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth; (4) that the defendant had a high degree of awareness of falsity; and (5 that the defendant had obvious reason to doubt the veracity of the informant or the accuracy of his reports. Id. at 420. [¶ 22] Whether a person is a public figure in a libel action is a question of law for the trial court. Nelson v. WEB Water Dev. Ass'n, Inc., 507 N.W.2d 691 (S.D.1993)(citing Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. at 88, 86 S.Ct. at 677, 15 L.Ed.2d at 606). [¶ 23] In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc ., the Supreme Court established a basis for determining if an individual is a public figure: In some instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. More commonly, an individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn in a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 351, 94 S.Ct. at 3012, 41 L.Ed.2d at 812. Further, a person who has substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs or has a position with such apparent importance that the public has an independent interest in the qualifications and performances of the person who holds it, beyond the general public interest in the qualifications and performance of all governmental employees may also be said to be a public figure or official as well. See Rosenblatt, 383 U.S. at 85-87, 86 S.Ct. at 676, 15 L.Ed.2d at 605-06.