Askew v. Collins

Askew · Supreme Court of Virginia · March 2, 2012 · No. Record No. 110323

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed a $350,000 judgment against Verbena Askew for defamation arising from a statement to Daily Press reporters that Brenda Collins had been institutionalized. The court held that the statement constituted defamation per se, permitting presumed compensatory damages, and that the injury was distinct from injuries associated with a later newspaper article. Accordingly, the court declined to set aside the jury verdict or apply Virginia Code § 8.01-35.1 to offset settlements paid by other defendants.

Court
Supreme Court of Virginia
Writing for the Court
McClanahan, J.; Kinser, C.J.; Lemons, J.; Goodwyn, J.; Millette, J.; Powell, J.; Lacy, S.J.
Jurisdiction
Virginia
Decision date
March 2, 2012
Docket number
Record No. 110323
Procedural posture
Askew appealed a final judgment entered after a jury found her liable for per se defamation and awarded Collins $350,000. She challenged the denial of her motion to set aside the verdict and the trial court's refusal to offset the judgment by settlements paid by other defendants.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the circuit court erred in refusing to set aside the jury's verdict and in refusing to apply the statutory settlement offset. The opinion applied established legal principles to the sufficiency and legal effect of the evidence and the statute.
Precedential value
precedential
Parties
Verbena Askew v. Brenda Collins
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

defamationdamagesappellate proceduretortsremedies

Practice areas

defamationtortsdamagescivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the circuit court erred in refusing to set aside the jury's defamation verdict on the ground that Askew's statement was not published in The Daily Press article and therefore could not have proximately caused Collins's damages.
  2. Whether Code § 8.01-35.1 required reducing Askew's judgment by the amounts Collins received in settlements from other defendants.

Holdings

  1. The circuit court properly refused to set aside the verdict. A private individual may recover compensatory damages for per se defamation when the defamatory statement was published to the reporters, even though the statement was not ultimately printed in the newspaper article, and damages to reputation, humiliation, and embarrassment are presumed.
  2. Code § 8.01-35.1 did not require reducing Askew's judgment by the $120,000 in settlements because the injury from Askew's January 8 statement was separate and distinct from any injury caused by the January 21 newspaper article, and no other defendant was alleged to have made Askew's statement.

Key quotations

Thus, as a matter of law, the jury needed no proof of damages suffered by Collins on which to predicate its compensatory award based upon the per se defamation negligently published by Askew. (at 5)
The injury resulting from the statement was separate and distinct from the injury resulting from the publication of the newspaper article on January 21st, therefore making Code § 8.01-35.1(A) inapplicable in this case. (at 7)

Factual background

Askew, a former circuit court judge, told two Daily Press reporters on January 8, 2003, that Collins had been institutionalized, although the statement was not published in the ensuing newspaper article. Collins had previously brought a sexual-harassment complaint against Askew and the City of Hampton, and Askew had signed an agreement not to make disparaging statements about Collins. The jury found that Askew's statement was per se defamatory and awarded Collins compensatory damages, while other defendants had previously paid Collins $120,000 in settlements.

Procedural history

Collins filed claims against Askew and several other defendants for defamation, breach of contract, and conspiracy. Collins settled with the City of Hampton, a City employee, and The Daily Press for $120,000, and the case proceeded to trial against Askew. The jury found for Collins on defamation and breach of contract, found for Askew on conspiracy, and entered a $350,000 judgment on the defamation claim. The circuit court denied Askew's post-verdict motion and declined to reduce the judgment under Code § 8.01-35.1; the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…