Interesting Read-lawsuit Funny Cide Part 1

[Buffymommy]

32 Fla. L. Weekly D1282a
Torts -- Injurious falsehood -- Action by owners of racehorse which won Kentucky Derby alleging that defendant newspaper published an article which implied that the jockey cheated in the race by using an illegal battery-operated device, and that the article caused the jockey to over-ride the horse in the Preakness in an attempt to vindicate himself, thereby using up too much of the horse's strength with the result that the horse did not win the Belmont, the third race for the Triple Crown -- Claimed damages consisting of loss of the winner's purse in the Belmont and bonus for Triple Crown cannot be said to be a direct and immediate result of newspaper article -- Trial court properly entered summary judgment for defendant on ground that defendant did not cause damages

FUNNY CIDE VENTURES, LLC., and SACKATOGA STABLE, Appellants, v. THE MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO., and KNIGHT-RIDDER, INC., Appellees. 4th District. Case No. 4D06-2347. May 16, 2007. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Leroy H. Moe, Judge; L.T. Case No. 05-007129 (13). Counsel: Bruce S. Rogow and Cynthia E. Gunther of Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Sanford L. Bohrer and Scott D. Ponce of Holland & Knight, LLP., Miami, for appellee.

(Per Curiam.) The elusiveness of horse racing's Triple Crown set the stage for this appeal, in which the plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendants. The amended complaint alleged that the defendants' publication of an article that stated that the jockey had admitted having something in his hand during his ride of the horse Funny Cide in the Kentucky Derby ultimately led to significant financial losses for the plaintiffs. The trial court disagreed and granted summary judgment for the defendants. We affirm.

The plaintiffs' horse, Funny Cide, won the Kentucky Derby in 2003. Shortly thereafter, and before the running of the Preakness, the Miami Herald falsely reported that the jockey Jose Santos admitted carrying an object in his hand during the Kentucky Derby. The article implied that he had cheated in the race by using an illegal battery-operated device. The Herald published a “correction & clarification” after being served with a statutory demand for retraction. The Herald agreed that Santos had not admitted to holding the object and apologized for the error.

Jose Santos rode Funny Cide to victory in the Preakness, winning by several lengths. But, the Triple Crown eluded the jockey and the horse when they placed third in the Belmont.

The plaintiffs, Sackatoga Stable and Funny Cide Ventures, LLC, (FCV) filed an amended complaint against the Herald for injurious falsehood and claimed damages for lost marketing and horse racing revenue because of the article. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged:

Third persons were influenced by [the Herald]'s publications, and falsely made to believe that Sackatoga [and FCV] conducted its horse racing business unlawfully. Consequently, Sackatoga [and FCV] suffered in its business relationships, and the value of the Funny Cide brand was diminished by [the Herald]'s publications.

As discovery took place, the plaintiffs' claim took new shape. The plaintiffs claimed that the article caused the jockey to over-ride the horse in the Preakness in an attempt to vindicate himself and the horse, used up too much of the horse's strength, and resulted in a third-place finish in the Belmont. In answers to interrogatories, the plaintiffs claimed their damages took the form of the loss of the winner's purse in the Belmont and the bonus for the Triple Crown.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on multiple grounds. One basis for the motion was that the claim was not legally supportable because the defendants did not cause the damages. The trial court granted the motion and entered summary judgment.

We review summary judgments de novo. L'Etoile Homeowners Ass'n. v. Fresolone, 940 So. 2d 1170, 1170 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

The plaintiffs alleged the tort of injurious falsehood. In such actions, the pecuniary loss recoverable is “restricted to that which results directly and immediately from the falsehood's effect on the conduct of third persons and the expenses incurred to counteract the publication.” Bothmann v. Harrington, 458 So. 2d 1163, 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). This requires the damages to “have been foreseeable and normal consequences of the alleged wrongful conduct, and the conduct must be a substantial factor in bringing about the losses.” Id.

Here, despite the novelty and creativity of the allegations, it cannot be said that the loss of the Belmont and the Triple Crown was a direct and immediate result of the Herald article. Simply put, it was not legally foreseeable that the article would cause the jockey to over-ride the horse in the Preakness, sapping the horse of its strength, and resulting in a third-place finish in the Belmont. Those damages are too tenuous and this claim cannot be countenanced in the law. We agree that the trial court correctly entered summary judgment for the defendants.

Affirmed. (Stone and May, JJ., concur.)