Court Opinion

ID: 9561100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:03:09.718173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:35.729090
License: Public Domain

Bussey, J.
(dissenting).
Being of the view that appellant’s motion for a directed verdict was properly refused, I most respectfully dissent, but shall only briefly state my views.
In my view, the true facts giving rise to the news stories and the editorial were neither fully nor truthfully enough set forth in either the news stories or the editorial to enable a reader to draw his own conclusions as to whether the defamatory content of the editorial was justified. While we have no prior decision directly in point factually, I am of the view that under the rationale of all of our prior decisions the issues of whether or not the editorial exceeded the privilege of fair comment and whether there was malice in fact were, under the evidence disclosed by this record, issues for the jury. See numerous cases collected in West’s South Carolina Digest, Libel and Slander, Key No. 123(8). Evidence of personal malignity or ill will need not be offered, nor such facts be found, to establish malice in publication of defamatory charges. Malice in fact may be proved by the circumstances of the preparation and publication of defamatory charges, as well as the language of the publication itself, and gross disregard o.f the rights of the person injured is equivalent to malice in fact. Fulton v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 220 S. C. 287, 67 S. E. (2d) 425.