Washington Post Co. v. Chaloner

Background

A widely circulated daily newspaper published an item reporting that John Armstrong Chaloner had shot and killed John Gillard while Gillard was abusing his wife, and that Chaloner had gone to a country home to recuperate afterward. Chaloner sued the newspaper for shame, infamy, and injury to his reputation, and a jury awarded him $10,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment before the case reached this Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the newspaper’s item unambiguously charged Chaloner with the crime of murder so that the judge could treat it as libel per se. The Court held that the trial court’s instruction — telling the jury the words implied murder and were actionable without proof of special harm — was wrong and harmful. The Justices explained that if a publication has only one clear meaning, a judge can decide if it is defamatory, but if the words can reasonably be read in two ways, one libelous and one not, then the jury must decide how ordinary readers would understand them. The Court noted the words could suggest a homicide without malice and therefore should not be taken from the jury.

Real world impact

The Court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. That means the earlier award is set aside for now, newspapers cannot be held liable per se when reports are ambiguous, and juries retain the task of determining how doubtful news items would be understood by readers. The decision preserves the jury’s role in close defamation questions and leaves the final outcome for a new trial.