Wayment v. Clear Channel Broadcasting, Inc., 2005 UT 25

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court considered a defamation action brought by a former television reporter concerning statements allegedly made about the reasons for her departure from the station. The court held that the reporter was not an all-purpose or limited-purpose public figure, affirmed summary judgment for the employer regarding statements allegedly made by one agent, and reversed and remanded regarding statements allegedly made by another agent.

Holdings

1. Wayment was not an all-purpose public figure because Clear Channel failed to provide clear evidence of the general fame, notoriety, and pervasive social or political influence required for that status.
2. Wayment was not a limited-purpose public figure because the record did not identify a particular public controversy related to the alleged defamation or show that she voluntarily thrust herself to the forefront of such a controversy to influence its resolution.
3. Summary judgment was proper for Fischer because the evidence offered to prove that he made the alleged defamatory statements was inadmissible hearsay, and his silence in response to newsroom rumors did not establish that he published the statements.
4. Wayment's evidence was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact because Benedict's alleged statements were substantially similar to the defamatory accusations pleaded in the complaint.
5. Qualified privilege did not provide an independent basis for affirming summary judgment for Benedict because the record contained sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue concerning whether he reasonably believed the statements to be true.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Wayment was an all-purpose or limited-purpose public figure for purposes of her defamation claim.
2. Whether Wayment presented admissible evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact that Fischer made the alleged defamatory statements.
3. Whether Wayment presented sufficient evidence that Benedict made statements substantially corresponding to the defamatory statements alleged in the complaint.
4. Whether an employer-employee qualified privilege independently supported summary judgment for Benedict because Wayment lacked evidence of common-law malice.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded