Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
880 F.2d 830 (1989)

- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Gary Wayne Black and Marjorie Eimann, the surviving son and mother of murdered Sandra Black, (plaintiffs) sued the Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc., (SOF) (defendant) for the wrongful death of Sandra. Black and Eimann alleged that SOF acted with gross negligence in publishing a personal-services classified advertisement through which Sandra’s husband, Robert Black, hired an assassin to kill her. The ad, which ran in three monthly SOF issues in 1984, read: “EX-MARINES—67-69 ‘Nam Vets, Ex-DI, weapons specialist—jungle welfare, pilot, M.E. high risk assignments, U.S. or overseas. (404) 991-2684.” Of the 2,000 ads placed in SOF from its inception in 1975 until this 1984 ad, a handful were linked to other crimes. The case went to a jury that found that the assailant’s ad related to illegal activity and that SOF knew or should have known from the face or context of the ad that it could reasonably be interpreted as an offer to engage in illegal activity. The jury then found that SOF’s negligence was the proximate cause of Sandra’s death and awarded Black and Eimann $1.9 million in compensatory damages and $7.5 million in punitive damages. SOF appealed and argued that tort liability here contravened First Amendment protections for commercial speech.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.