Alabama’s highest court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling granting a new trial to a recruiting analyst, who was on the losing end of a $30 million jury verdict.
The ruling means that former University of Alabama assistant coach Ronnie Cottrell will have to, once again, prove that the defendant, Tom Culpepper, defamed him during the NCAA’s investigation of alleged rules violations in 2000.
Originally, Cottrell was joined in the suit by Ivy Williams, as both plaintiffs alleged that the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Tom Culpepper, and others were guilty of defamation, false-light invasion of privacy, negligence, wantonness, and civil conspiracy.
The only claim that was presented to a jury, however, was Cottrell’s defamation claim against Culpepper. The jury returned a verdict for Cottrell in the amount of $6 million in compensatory damages and $24 million in punitive damages. Culpepper then filed a renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial. The trial court granted Culpepper’s motion for a new trial, spawning the plaintiff’s appeal.
The impetus for the suit was the comments that Culpepper made to friends in the media that Cottrell was a liar “without a job, and he’s going to have a damn hard time finding one. And that’s all there is to it.” Culpepper “communicated about Cottrell and Williams in various media forums,” wrote the court.
“In October 2000, Cottrell became so concerned about the number and frequency of Culpepper’s statements about him that he met with Culpepper in the presence of others in an attempt to resolve Culpepper’s animosity toward him and to end Culpepper’s verbal attack on his character and reputation. The evidence indicated, however, that Culpepper continued to make statements about Cottrell and that, sometime after December 2000, he told Terry Harrington and Bruce Parrish, both members of the media, that Cottrell had abandoned his family in Tallahassee; that Cottrell and his assistant had stolen videotapes from The University’s athletic department; and that Cottrell had stolen funds from the Shaun Alexander Foundation.”
Ultimately, Cottrell’s claim against Culpepper proceeded to trial. One of the key findings in the case was the court’s decision that Cottrell was a private figure as opposed to a limited-purpose public figure, meaning he would not have to show actual malice to succeed against Culpepper. Accordingly, the trial court instructed the jury that Cottrell had to prove by only a preponderance of the evidence that Culpepper negligently made the statements. Thus, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Cottrell.
The high court took issue with the trial court’s handling of that decision, writing “we have thoroughly reviewed the record, and we conclude that Culpepper was prejudiced by the trial court’s changing Cottrell’s classification from a limited-purpose public figure to a private figure at the close of all the evidence. It is clear that Culpepper’s strategy throughout the trial focused on establishing that Culpepper did not make the statements with actual malice and not on defending against a finding that he had made the statements negligently. Therefore, the trial court did not exceed the scope of its discretion when it ordered a new trial. Hayden v. Elam, 739 So. 2d 1088, 1093 (Ala. 1999).”
Ronald W. Cottrell et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al.; S.Ct. Ala.; 1041858 and 1050436, 1050437, 2007 Ala. LEXIS 104; 6/1/07
