Court Opinion

ID: 9735010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:56:48.86493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:54.023614
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION

Justice SAYLOR.
I join the majority opinion, except for its determination that a cause of action would be stated upon the filing of an amended complaint alleging some unequivocal communication *636to Appellant-newspapers that the Tuckers’ loss of spousal consortium claim did not include a claim for loss of sexual relations. Since the Tucker II Complaint was filed as of record and contained a boilerplate claim for loss of consortium, which, by definition encompassed a claim for damage to the Tuckers’ sexual relationship, in my view, knowledge on the part of Appellant-newspapers of some greater demonstrated commitment on the part of the Tuckers to a more restricted damages claim would be necessary to implicate the kind of reckless disregard for the truth essential to a defamation claim in the present circumstances.