Court Opinion

ID: 9734253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:29:45.817311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:47.267391
License: Public Domain

Riley, J.
(concurring). Although I agree essentially with the opinion of the majority, I write separately to make the following observations.
I concur in the result reached by the majority *272that this Court has a constitutional duty to independently evaluate the evidence in defamation cases and that, in this case, plaintiff failed to establish material falsity. I also agree with the majority that the decision of the Court of Appeals must be vacated. However, as a threshold matter, I suggest that plaintiff’s failure to allege and identify in his pleading, supplemental pleading, and answers to defendant’s interrogatories, specifically which statements he considered to be materially false and how the newspaper either was negligent or reckless in publishing the story, were proper grounds for summary judgment by the trial court.
I
In Locricchio v Evening News Ass’n, 438 Mich 84, 115-116; 476 NW2d 112 (1991), we reviewed our common-law precedent1 and listed the four components required to state a cause of action for libel: (1) a false and defamatory statement of and concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the publisher, and (4) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by publication. We also stated that a cause of action for libel requires a plaintiff to show defamatory meaning as well as falsity, fault, and publication. Locricchio, supra at 116. Inherent in these requirements is the well-established rule that a defamation plaintiff must plead with specificity who published the defamatory statement, when it was published, and, most importantly, a plaintiff must identify the precise materially false statement published. MacGriff v Van Antwerp, 327 Mich 200, 204-205; 41 NW2d 524 (1950). In Mac*273Griff, we held that the plaintiff’s failure to directly identify the defamatory statements entitled the defendant to summary judgment. Id. at 204. In subsequent cases, the Court of Appeals routinely followed this rule by affirming trial court rulings that granted summary judgment to defamation defendants.2
In recent years, however, a conflict developed in the Court of Appeals over whether a general allegation of malice is sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. The conflict began with Parks v Johnson, 84 Mich App 162, 169; 269 NW2d 514 (1978), wherein a Court of Appeals panel held that because courts are liberal in finding the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, they should not grant summary judgment unless convinced that the claim cannot be supported at trial. The Parks rationale was disapproved, however, in Hayes v Booth Newspapers, Inc, 97 Mich App 758, 774-775; 295 NW2d 858 (1980); Lins v Evening News Ass’n, 129 Mich App 419, 435; 342 NW2d 573 (1983); Dienes v Associated Newspapers, Inc, 137 Mich App 272, 283; 358 NW2d 562 (1984); and again in Kurz v Evening News Ass’n, 144 Mich App 205, 213; 375 NW2d *274391 (1985), vacated on other grounds 428 Mich 886; 403 NW2d 805 (1987). These panels of the Court of Appeals concluded that a plaintiff must plead specific facts in support of showing actual malice to defeat a motion for summary judgment. The issue was settled until yet another panel held that Parks was correct; malice can be generally alleged and plaintiff should be given ample opportunity to demonstrate actual malice. Grostick v Ellsworth, 158 Mich App 18, 23; 404 NW2d 685 (1987). The Grostick decision was abandoned shortly thereafter in Smith v Fergan, 181 Mich App 594, 597; 450 NW2d 3 (1989). The Smith Court reaffirmed the principle that because the issue of actual malice is one for the jury, specific supporting facts must be alleged and general allegations of malice are, therefore, insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact. The Smith decision is now controlling authority, and under Administrative Order Nos. 1990-6, 1991-11, binding precedent. See Gonyea v Motor Parts Federal Credit Union, 192 Mich App 74, 80; 480 NW2d 297 (1991); Prysak v R L Polk Co, 193 Mich App 1, 14; 483 NW2d 629 (1992).
In a similar vain, MCR 2.111(B)(1), and its predecessor GCR 1963, 111.1(1) requires plaintiffs to state in their pleadings "[a] statement of the facts, without repetition, on which the pleader relies in stating the cause of action, with the speciñc allegations necessary reasonably to inform the adverse party of the nature of the claims the adverse party is called on to defend” (emphasis added). Failure to identify a false statement should result in summary disposition in favor of the defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8).
ii
In the instant case, plaintiff, deemed a private *275person implicated in a matter of public concern,3 filed his complaint dated December 2, 1980, alleging that defendant defamed him by stating that he was arrested, charged, and released on $10,000 personal recognizance bond for sexually assaulting the baby-sitter of his children.4 Shortly thereafter, defendant sent plaintiff a set of interrogatories requesting him to "[s]et forth separately each statement of fact in the article which Plaintiff alleges was false, separately quoting each alleged false statement of fact,” and then to "describe the exact nature and extent of the alleged falsity.” In his answers, plaintiff apparently understood this to mean that the issue of falsity went to the question whether he committed the assault, which he did not, and because he had not, the article was materially false.
Upon receiving the answers, defendant for*276warded a supplemental set of interrogatories requesting plaintiff to specifically describe which statement in the article was false. Plaintiff objected to the supplemental interrogatories, arguing that the question "deal[s] with legal principles or at least the application of facts to legal principles which only Plaintiff’s attorney is qualified to answer . . . .” Defendant responded with a motion for summary judgment alleging first, that the article is substantially true — because the falsity issue did not relate to whether he committed the assault, but rather to whether the defendant’s report of plaintiff’s arrest was accurate — and, second, that it is privileged under Michigan’s common-law qualified privilege and the official proceedings act, MCL 600.2911(3); MSA 27A.2911(3). Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment alleging that defendant admitted in its affirmative defense that the story was false, and, therefore, the only issue at trial was damages.
Calhoun Circuit Court Judge Stanley Everett denied both motions, but ordered plaintiff to answer defendant’s supplemental interrogatories. At this hearing, Judge Everett recognized that plaintiff had failed to plead with specificity the defamatory statements published, how the statements related to him, and what was materially false within the statement. Judge Everett also recognized that the specificity requirement is needed in defamation pleadings, as it is in the ordinary negligence cases, to allow the parties to narrow their focus on the allegedly libelous statements and to determine if the article, taken as a whole, is materially false.5 Plaintiff’s counsel again ar*277gued that his client’s guilt or innocence of the underlying assault is determinative regarding whether the article is materially false. Defense counsel posited in response that "the Judge put his finger on it when [he] made the analogy to the negligence case. All that [plaintiff’s] complaint says is that . . . the publication was made maliciously. Now, under the [Court] Rules, . . . there has to be some showing of falsity and knowledge of falsity, and so on, ... to make out a case [for] libel
Upon receiving plaintiff’s answers to the supplemental interrogatories — which stated that the article was false because he did not commit the rape, and that defendant committed various omissions in publishing the story — defendant moved again for summary judgment. Defense counsel argued that "none of those answers state or raise any issue of malice in the sense that is applicable to this libel action.”6 Plaintiff responded by alleging *278that the article was not privileged under the official proceedings act, that the article was defamatory because it falsely accused him of a crime he did not commit, and that the paper failed to make an effort to assess the truthfulness of the report.
This time, Judge Everett granted defendant’s motion. He based his conclusion on the fact that there was a qualified privilege to publish the story, and that plaintiff failed to specify in his answers to the supplemental interrogatories "any allegation which suggests that the statements were known to be false on the part of the people involved in its publication or with reckless disregard whether they were false or not.”7
hi
Thus, I write separately to indicate my agreement with the trial court and to emphasize my *279belief that although this Court abandoned the "actual malice” standard for private person-public interest defamation actions in Rouch I8 and adopted the "negligence” standard of liability, defendant was, nevertheless, entitled to summary disposition, as a matter of law, on the basis of our common-law precedent9 and our court rules.10 The relatively simple requirement of pleading facts to support allegations of material falsity, negligence, or reckless disregard for the truth should be followed by plaintiffs in defamation actions, and, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), defendant should have been entitled to summary disposition on this ground alone a decade ago.
Griffin, J., concurred with Riley, J.

 Nuyen v Slater, 372 Mich 654, 662, n *; 127 NW2d 369 (1964).

 De Guvera v Sure Fit Products, 14 Mich App 201, 206; 165 NW2d 418 (1968) (" '[t]he law requires the very words of the libel to be set out in the declaration in order that the court or judge may judge whether they constitute a ground of action’ ”); Pursell v WolverinePentronix, Inc, 44 Mich App 416, 421; 205 NW2d 504 (1973) (applying the De Guvera-MacGriff rule to slander actions); Hernden v Consumers Power Co, 72 Mich App 349, 356; 249 NW2d 419 (1976) (a plaintiff’s failure to allege "where, when, or to whom this statement [publication that the plaintiff was fired for lack of productivity] was published, or that there even was a publication to anyone other than the plaintiff himself”); Ledl v Quik Pik Food Stores, Inc, 133 Mich App 583, 589-590; 349 NW2d 529 (1984) (referring to Hernden and Pursell with approval, the Ledl Court held that the failure of a plaintiff to set forth with specificity the necessary elements of a defamation cause of action: the defamatory words complained of, the connection of the defamatory words with the plaintiff, and the publication of the alleged defamatory words, entitled the defendant to summary judgment).

 Rouch v Enquirer & News of Battle Creek, 427 Mich 157, 204; 398 NW2d 245 (1986).

 Plaintiff’s complaint, dated December 2, 1980, alleged the following facts.
3. That on or about December 22, 1979, said Defendant falsely and/or maliciously published an article concerning your Plaintiff in said newspaper and that the charges made therein were false and defamatory as follows: that Plaintiff was arrested and charged with the sexual assault of a 17-year old woman who was babysitting with Plaintiff’s children at Plaintiff’s ex-wife’s residence; that Plaintiff was free on a $10,000 personal recognizance bond; that Plaintiff was charged with first-degree sexual conduct; that Plaintiff attacked said 17-year old woman and used a knife to cut her clothes off; that Plaintiff was identified as the person making said assault by his children.
4. That by said words, Defendant meant and was understood to mean that Plaintiff was the person who sexually assaulted and raped a 17-year old woman who was babysitting his children.
5. That said publication of said facts as they related to your Plaintiff were false.
Subsequently, plaintiff amended his complaint on December 19, 1980, alleging the same facts with the identical paragraphs.

 As he explained:
How is it different, Mr. Jereck, from'the ordinary negligence case in which the interrogatory may say, specify what acts on *277the part of the defendant you claim were negligent? Now, the term negligence has a special meaning in the law, it is a little more — a little easier probably for the layman to recognize it than malice, as we’re using it. But, he could easily say, I don’t know what negligence is and, therefore, I can’t — what the legal definition of negligence is, therefore, I can’t answer your question, and avoid it.

 Defense counsel proceeded with the argument:
Malice in this sense — in the State of Michigan, means malice in the sense of the New York Times v Sullivan [376 US 254; 84 S Ct 710; 11 L Ed 2d 686 (1964)]. That test has been reiterated in case after case in our courts; that where a publication is made by a news media of a newsworthy story, the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish that the publication was made with malice, that is, with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of falsity. It is our position, Your Honor, that none of the answers to the interrogatories that are on file in any way establish that at the time that the news story was published, that anyone at the newspaper knew that the matter — material was false or had reckless disregard of the falsity.
*278It is also important to recognize that defense counsel did not rely on the official proceedings act.

 The court concluded with the following thoughts:
Now, many of the things set forth which you read, Mr. Jereck, relate to events after the publication which might very well go to damages and mitigating damages, but the fact as presented to the court at this time is that the reporter contacted the police, was given information, some of which, admittedly, was true; but the important point was false, and that is that there had been an authorization for a warrant charging the defendant with a specific criminal offense of some significance. I don’t find anything that suggests there was an actual knowledge of the falsity of the statement or anything to suggest there was reckless disregard of the truthfulness or falsity of the statements. Consequently, I am satisfied — and I am relying on particularly on Schultz v Newsweek Incorporated [668 F2d 911 (CA 6, 1982)], which is the most recent decision which has been called to my attention, at least, in this evolving state of law. I am satisfied that (1) there is a qualified privilege, (2) that no suggestion has been made on the part of plaintiff that he can substantiate malice; and, therefore, that the defendant is entitled to have the matter dismissed by way of summary judgment.

 Rouch, n 3 supra.

 MacGriff, supra at 204-205.

 MCR 2.111(B)(1). See also Niehoff, The Michigan law of defamation, 1985 Det C L R 975, 980-982.