2003 Kentucky Derby winning jockey Jose Santos is suing the Miami Herald for libel following a story in the Herald last year insinuating that Santos used an illegal device on Derby winner Funny Cide in his winning ride. The allegations were disproven days later.
Does Santos have a case? It comes down to two things: one, did Santos suffer injuries as a result of the Herald article and two, did the Herald act with actual malice or reckless disregard for truth or falsity in publishing the article?
In defamation cases, plaintiffs can be awarded compensatory damages for presumed damages due to the defamation. These damages require no proof and are presumed under the law.
Santos is also alleging loss of reputation and emotional distress because of the Herald article. In addition to that, although it's not stated in the article above, Santos could also sue for economic loss due to the Herald article. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789, 94 S. Ct. 2997 (1974), the court says injury:
"is not limited to out-of-pocket loss. Indeed, the more customary types of actual harm inflicted by defamatory falsehood include impairment of reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering."
Santos is a world-renowned jockey who rides for some of the ritziest stables in the world. His clients have last names like Phipps, Farrish, al Maktoum and more. In this heady world, any taint of a scandal like this would torpedo Santos immediately. Furthermore, Santos probably could claim that he suffered economic loss due to the Herald article. As the rider of a popular Kentucky Derby winning horse, he could have been in line for several endorsement deals. The scandal surrounding the Herald article prevented him from striking while the iron was still hot. Who knows what it cost him?
The point is, is that the question of injury is one that the court needs to judge on the specific merits of the case. This case won't be thrown out of court because Santos didn't suffer injuries.
The second question, however, may very well get the case thrown out. As a public figure, Santos must prove that the Miami Herald acted with malice or with reckless disregard for the truth. This is a higher standard than a private citizen would face. The courts have fiercely protected the First Amendment rights of the press, and while private citizens need merely prove negligence for defamation, a public figure must leap this higher hurdle.
A quick breakdown of the relevant facts of the case (click here for a more detailed account).
1. A Herald reporter thought he saw something in Santos' hand in a photograph of the Derby ride.
2. Other editors pointed out that over 30 other pictures showed nothing.
3. The reporter e-mailed the photograph to two horse racing stewards. They believed it was suspicious and planned to meet with some lawyers.
4. The reporter called Santos and spoke to him for several minutes.
5. Santos said that he told the reporter the spot in the photograph must have been his "Q-ray for arthritis" (a bracelet). The reporter said he thought Santos said "Cue ring for the outrider". Note that Santos is from Chile and speaks with a heavy accent. The interview was conducted over the phone in English without any translators or Spanish-speakers present.
6. The reporter and his editors couldn't find anyone who could verify that a "cue ring" existed. They ran quotes from these people stating that. They followed up those quotes with this: "Some jockeys have been known to use illegal, battery-operated devices." No one called Santos back to try to verify his story.
So, is this reckless disregard? I don't think so. It's incredibly sloppy and sleazy and motivated by a lust for a worldwide scoop. But it doesn't seem to meet the standard of reckless disregard. In St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, the Court says:
Reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual malice.
In this case, the Herald reporter said he thought there might have been a 5% chance he heard Santos wrong. And, in any case, he did get the opinion of the two stewards who agreed that something might be wrong.
I'd expect a summary judgement in favor of the Miami Herald. It's too bad for Santos as the Herald, in my opinion, deserves some kind of punishment for it's sloppy work in pursuit of the scoop.
Posted by kris at May 10, 2004 06:58 PM | TrackBack