Jose Santos and Sackatoga Sue the Herald

[JustRalph]

http://espn.go.com/horse/news/2004/0509/1798144.html


Santos and the owners filed a lawsuit for libel against the Miami Herald..............pay up time..........

[andicap]

Going to be tough to win this suit. As a "public figure," Santos has more to prove than if you or me were libeled. Rather than just show negligence, he has to prove malice as in the movie, "Absence of Malice." That is, that the Herald KNEW what it was publishing was wrong. And I do not think the Herald would have published that item if it thought it was incorrect.

Best Santos can hope for is an out-of-court settlement with the newspaper which may hope to avoid legal fees.

[Valuist]

I just e-mailed a good friend who is a writer. He follows racing and is a fan; he basically said what Andicap said. It will be very difficult to prove malice.

But to 98% of the public, there is one race a year. They heard the allegations and believe "all races are fixed". They probably heard the allegations of a battery but never heard that it was all BS. You know the type; you're at work or a party and you say you like racing and then they jump in "its all fixed; just look at the battery in the Derby." I do believe there was harm done to his reputation.

[JustRalph]

I understand the "Malice" point and standard in the law. But I think they are very willing to settle.......that may be the ultimate goal.......

[JPinMaryland]

HOw in the Hell is Santos a public figure? Public figure is a term usually reserved for politicians, generals and people who insert themselves into political controversies.

It's not likely a court would rule Santos is a public figure unless he has inserted himself into some public controversy. And "no," horseracing is not a public controversy in the legal sense of libel/slander.

[Lance]

Interesting point, JPin. I know you're right about people becoming public figures when they inject themselves into public controversies, but I believe there is also a "fame" test. Santos may have become a public figure the day he won the Derby. Anyway, if he is a public figure, he will need to prove malice, but this doesn't mean he has to prove someone deliberately made a false statement about him. Reckless disregard for the truth will do.

[JustRalph]

Here is one definition....not sure how up to date it is.....but it is still not very clear.........

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm

[JPinMaryland]

I still dont think he becomes a public figure by winning the derby. There are some contradictory decisions in this field of law to be sure. How public does he have to be? Surely Santos is not as well known as Shoemaker, Arcaro? For that matter is any jockey really that famous?

Unfortunately I have not seen any court attempt to take evidence on such a pt. They usually just say "so and so" IS a public figure or IS NOT. Survey evidence would be interesting.

There are still major obstacles for Santos in this case. The KY derby did become a controversy after the allegations concerning the bracelet/electro shock prod. And a newspaper could and probably should cover such a controvery over a well known sporting event.

With that in mind, one could create some sort of balancing test when a controvery is public but the person is not. Did the newspaper act reasonably? etc.

So if a court was to be realistic about it, the controversy was very public although the rider is really not a public figure. This does not seem an unreasonable way to look at it, but we have seen strange decisions in this field.

I have my doubts whether a court can actually make this fine a distinction. A lot of courts are just going to take the easy way out and say he is or is not a public figure.

Another example might be PFC Lyndie whatsername that is facing a court martial over the POW abuse. She cant possibly be a public figure, but clearly this controvery is very public. And she didnt inject herself into the controvery, at least not in the legal sense. But of course some one on the other side could argue that she did inject herself.

In this case, the newspapers might argue that Santos injected himself into the controversy but that seeems intellectually dishonest. He was the rider and all he could help but be a part of it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Jose Santos is most definitely a public figure. How is there any doubt to this? He performs in front of thousands of people EVERY DAY. He's been interviewed on NATIONAL TV dozens of times through the years.

His VERY CAREER rests on his ability to GET QUALITY MOUNTS. A jockey's reputation MEANS TONS in this business. The Herald, whether knowingly or not, printed a false story that damaged his reputation in the minds of many, many people.

Seems like a slam-dunk to me....but maybe I'm not thinking straight....

[JPinMaryland]

It's a legal doctrine having to do with what are often political controversies, that's why there's considerable doubt. THere are cases of well known people who are not "public figures."

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by JPinMaryland
It's a legal doctrine having to do with what are often political controversies, that's why there's considerable doubt. THere are cases of well known people who are not "public figures."

I seem to remember someone years back who had been featured on the cover of People magazine being deemed not a public figure in a lawsuit against the National Enquirer.......I will look into it..........

[JPinMaryland]

Carol Burnett had a famous slander case against the Nat'l Enquirer and won. I presume she was not found a public figure. OTOH: I was watching a bio on Wayne Newton the other day and his lawsuit against NBC back in the early 80s. THis had to do with a story suggesting a connection between Newton and the mob in Vegas. He won the case in the lower court but lost on appeal on the issue of public figure. DIdnt read the case but presumably Newton was found to have injected himself into the controvery surrounding his attempt to buy one of the casinos

Again I think it could be a very fact dependent situation. But Jose Santos is nowhere near the celebrity of Carol Burnett or Wayne Newton.

[andicap]

PA is right, the bar for being a "public figure" is not that high.
Burnett won her case by proving malice -- the Inquirer KNEW what it was publishing was wrong.

Santos is nominated for the Hall of Fame I believe. Sounds like a pretty public figure to me.

[JPinMaryland]

can you cite something to that effect, or should I just take your word?

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage

Seems like a slam-dunk to me....but maybe I'm not thinking straight....

One would think that, but then Santos is from the "dirty little world of gambling and shady people and all that crap." I suspect the paper will be viewed as mainstream and Santos will have an uphill battle. It's not like he was a famous basketball player who knowingly cheated on his wife and slept with a young woman in a hotel. Popularity goes a long way in our courts these days. Justice is not the priority.