State Appeals Court Tosses Defamation Suit Against Lawyer Who Wrote About Teen Driver Who Injured His Client

from the lower-court-apparently-believes-only-God's-direct-word-to-be-'substantia dept

An interesting sidebar to a case we’ve written about previously has surfaced via the ever-attentive Eric Goldman. Last month we covered a lawsuit against Snapchat brought by the victims of an car accident. The victims claim Snapchat is at least partially responsible for the injuries inflicted on Karen Maynard. The driver of the other vehicle, Christal McGee, was allegedly driving at over 100 mph when she hit Maynard’s vehicle. The suit also alleged — based on passenger statements, accident reconstruction, and police reports — McGee was using Snapchat’s “Speed” filter when the accident occurred.

The Georgia state appeals court allowed the case to proceed, but not on Section 230 grounds. It was remanded to the lower court to allow for more exploration of the issues at hand, noting that Section 230 likely does not apply to software created by Snapchat itself. Of course, dismissal may still be the outcome as it’s going to be tough to prove Snapchat’s creation of a filter was either negligence or contributory to the accident caused by McGee’s unsafe driving.

The sidebar is this: Christal McGee has racked up a loss in Georgia Appeals Court in a case tied to the accident she caused. McGee sued Michael Neff — the Maynards’ legal rep in the lawsuit against Snapchat — for defamation. According to McGee, Neff’s blog post detailing the Snapchat lawsuit was defamatory. The lower court allowed the case to proceed, slapping aside Neff’s anti-SLAPP motion.

The appeals court, however, finds [PDF] there was no defamation and certainly nothing written with actual malice. (Emphasis in the original.)

Neff argues that he acted in good faith at the time he published the article to his law firm’s website because he relied upon the police report, the report from the accident reconstructionist and the verified affidavit of Heather McCarty. This evidence was known to Neff prior to the publication of his article on April 26, 2016. In its ruling that “[t]here is evidence from which a jury could find that some of [the statements in the article] were false,” the trial court cited to affidavits signed after the publication of the article. This, and other evidence cited to by McGee that was not known to Neff until after the publication of the article, do not factor into his good faith at the time of publication.

McGee argued Neff’s statements were malicious because the affidavits he used to write his article weren’t signed at the point the post went live. The appeals court finds this does not make his use of the affidavits’ contents malicious, especially since some of this testimony was already included in available police reports.

The only other evidence Neff had at the time he published his article were statements obtained by the police from the other passengers in McGee’s car. The statements in the police report by two of the passengers in McGee’s car did not deny McGee’s use of Snapchat. One of these statements was silent as to McGee’s speed, and the other stated that she had been traveling at 60-65 m.p.h. A third statement, by Heather McCarty, was signed and stated that McGee was going “a little over 110 m.p.h.” at the time of the accident.

The statements made by Neff about teens’ use of Snapchat while driving (and, in particular, McGee’s alleged use of Snapchat) were supported by outside statements. The lower court should not have declared these blog post assertions should be subjected to additional courtroom scrutiny before allowing a motion to dismiss.

The court also notes the content of the blog post was of public interest. It dealt with teen driving, Snapchat use while driving, a just-filed lawsuit against the company, and, generally, the dangers of distracted driving. The mention of McGee’s alleged careless driving was relevant to the lawsuit and the issues at hand. There was nothing defamatory about Neff’s public discussion of these allegation, especially when supported by passenger statements to police and as-yet-unsigned affidavits.

Adding it all up, the appeals court says there’s no way McGee is likely to prevail on the merits of her allegations. The lawsuit is dismissed under Georgia’s anti-SLAPP law, which means McGee will now likely to be on the hook for Neff’s legal costs.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: snapchat

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “State Appeals Court Tosses Defamation Suit Against Lawyer Who Wrote About Teen Driver Who Injured His Client”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
David says:

Re: Re:

How about the personal responsibility of U.S. voters for alienating the U.S. with Western democracies and making it cozy up with dictatorships?

Maybe one could subject Trump voters to the same amount of unconstitutional searches and beatings as other U.S. citizens? Extras for campaign contributors?

Wendy Cockcroft (user link) says:

Memo to Christal McGee et al

Oh, dear lord…! Since when does reporting someone’s bad behaviour become a malicious act?

You do a stupid thing and people get hurt.

Someone else reports what happened, i.e. you behaved in a stupid way and people got hurt.

If you get flak for the bad behaviour in which you engaged because a media outlet reported it that’s not the outlet’s fault, it’s yours. If you engaged in bad behaviour using an app of some kind, it’s still your own damn fault.

Christal, I understand the need to pass the buck or to want to get the heat off but honestly, being willing to take responsibility for your actions is a better look.

Et al, I understand that SnapChat makes a ton of money and they made an app to be used “at speed” but they’re not responsible for the collision, Christal is.

Okay, moving on…

…please note that if you launch silly lawsuits you will a) lose and b) look worse than if you simply accepted the situation.

On an unrelated note, why is it not considered unethical for a lawyer to take these cases? Surely to goodness they know they will lose?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »