A Pennsylvania appeals court has affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment to a journalist, who cited an anonymous source in reporting that an assistant basketball coach at Temple University had a substance abuse problem that led to “a theft problem” in the Owls’ locker room.
The impetus for the litigation was a report that aired on March 9, 2003, a day after plaintiff Nathaniel Blackwell, an assistant coach and former Temple basketball star, was suspended indefinitely for “violating team rules.”
The reporter, Howard Eskin, cited an anonymous source, Temple Police Officer Charles Campbell, who suggested that Blackwell had an addiction to cocaine, that Temple knew about his drug problem and that, a year earlier, Blackwell had been involved in a theft problem in the Temple locker room.
Blackwell sued Eskin and the television station, alleging that the theft statement defamed him, placed him in a false light and interfered with his prospective contractual relations.
The appeals court quickly dispatched with the plaintiff’s arguments on appeal.
First, it found that just because the journalist did not corroborate the testimony of damming source, his actions could not be characterized as “actual malice,” a requirement for a plaintiff, who is a public figure to prove defamation. The appeals court agreed with the trial court’s statement that there “has been no evidence presented to suggest” that the journalist “knew of any reason to question Officer Campbell’s credibility or reliability.”
Second, the appeals court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that it was reasonable to believe “an assistant coach who engages in an illegal drug habit and who was so out of control that he was missing games and risking his job, might also engage in other illegal behavior like theft to support his cocaine habit. The criminal courts abound with cases of individuals who have taken this unfortunate path. The issue is not whether the statement is true but whether [Appellee] knew that the statement was false or probably false.”
“Finally, a claim is raised as to the allegedly destructive effects of the theft reference in ‘compromis[ing] Appellant’s employability,’ (Appellant’s Brief at 30), that is, in interfering with his ‘prospective economic advantage and/or contractual relations.’”
The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with a contractual relation, whether existing or prospective, are as follows:
(1) the existence of a contractual, or prospective contractual relation between the complainant and a third party;
(2) purposeful action on the part of the defendant, specifically intended to harm the existing relation, or to prevent a prospective relation from occurring;
(3) the absence of privilege or justification on the part of the defendant; and
(4) the occasioning of actual legal damage as the result of the defendant’s conduct.
Reading Radio, Inc. v. Fink, 2003 PA Super 353, 833 A.2d 199, 211 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 577 Pa. 723, 847 A.2d 1287 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Strickland v. University of Scranton, 700 A.2d 979, 985 (Pa. Super. 1997)).
“As Appellee points out, our Supreme Court has explained that the rule to be applied in determining if this sort of alleged interference has actually occurred is whether ‘but for the wrongful acts of the defendant,’ it is reasonably probable that the plaintiff would have established a contractual relation. Thompson Coal Company v. Pike Coal Company, 488 Pa. 198, 412 A.2d 466, 471 (Pa. 1979). That question cannot be answered in the affirmative here, since, as the trial court observes, ‘[Appellant] has provided no evidence of an employer, or even the opinion of an employer, who would be willing to hire him with his current addiction to cocaine but would not do so because of the theft statement.’ (Trial [**12] Ct. Op. at 26) (emphasis original).”
The appeals court went on to cite the trial court’s reliance on Temple Deputy Provost and Dean Richard Englert, who said the school “would not hire a cocaine addict to coach student athletes.”
Nathaniel Blackwell v. Howard Eskin, WCAU-TV, d/b/a 10 NBC, et al.; Superior Court of Pennsylvania; No. 3103 EDA 2005; 2007 PA Super 20; 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 48; 1/18/07
Attorneys of Record: (for appellant) David A. Yanoff, Philadelphia. (for appellees) Amy B. Ginensky, Philadelphia.
