Hickey v. Settlemier

864 P.2d 372 (1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P obtained a federal license to sell animals for medical research. P's facilities were inspected several times by the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The Department of Agriculture filed a formal complaint alleging that P had violated the Animal Welfare Act. An administrative law judge suspended P's license for one year, assessed a civil penalty of $10,000, and issued a cease and desist order regarding the various violations. D, who is P's neighbor, was interviewed by the nationally televised program '20/20.' A videotape of the program that shows D making certain statements and an ABC reporter saying was shown: 'More than 300 people in central Oregon have complained that their pets were stolen and delivered to [plaintiff's] operation. Many want [plaintiff's facility] closed down, including [plaintiff's] own godmother, [defendant], who lives next door. She says there's no doubt in her mind that he's mistreating animals and dealing in stolen pets.' D denied making any statement that P mistreats animals or deals in stolen pets. P sued D for defamation. His complaint alleged that D made three false statements. D moved for summary judgment because the federal agency's decision preclusively established the truth of the allegations. P also denied making the statements attributed to her. D said nothing on-camera about stolen animals. Also, she said nothing off-camera about stolen animals. There was no communication or publication, by D, of the allegedly defamatory statement. Therefore, the statement cannot support a claim against her.' The trial held that the federal agency's order established 'that the statements made by D which were alleged to be slanderous, are true or substantially true.' The Court of Appeals reversed holding that the truth of the statements is a question of fact for the jury. It held that the videotape of the television show the correspondent stating that D did make the statements. It concluded that the evidence is sufficient to make the publication of the statement a disputed question of fact. D appealed.