Torts
Exam 13
Fact pattern
A town requested bids from contractors to repave its streets. The town’s mayor was responsible for selecting the winning bidder. The mayor was required to select the bidder who presented the most favorable combination of cost and quality of work, even if that bidder was not the lowest bidder.
Ten contractors submitted bids, which ranged from $125,000 to $200,000. One of the bidders was a construction company owned by the mayor’s brother-in-law. The construction company had a good reputation for quality and reliability. At $175,000, this company’s bid was right in the middle of the bids received, with five bids coming in below it.
The mayor was also on the board of directors of a local charity that provided food to those in need. On the same day the construction company submitted its bid, the construction company donated $10,000 to the charity. None of the other bidders donated to the charity. Two weeks later, the mayor announced that the construction company was the winning bidder.
Later that year, the mayor was up for reelection. The mayor was opposed by one other candidate. During the campaign, the opposing candidate made the following statement during a speech: “We ought to think hard about our current mayor. Remember that street-paving contract? The company that got that contract made a donation to the mayor’s favorite charity. Then they got the contract, even though they weren’t the low bidder. I think we all know how that happened.”
The local newspaper asked the mayor for comment about the statement, but the mayor’s office did not respond to the request. The newspaper then reported this statement in a story about the mayoral race. The newspaper did not express any opinion about the statement. The newspaper simply reported the fact that the candidate made the statement and quoted the statement in full.
The mayor sued both the candidate and the newspaper for defamation in state court.
During discovery, the mayor admitted that: the construction company was not the lowest bidder, the construction company made the donation to the charity on the same day that it submitted its bid, and the food charity is his favorite. However, the mayor denied that the donation had anything to do with the contract award.
The candidate moved for summary judgment, asserting a truth defense. The candidate argued that she could not be liable for defamation because the mayor had admitted that all the facts in the statement were true.
The newspaper also moved for summary judgment, asserting a republication defense. The newspaper argued that it could not be liable for defamation because it had merely reported the fact that the candidate had made the statement and the public had a right to know about that statement’s existence.
The trial court took both motions under submission, evaluating whether either defendant had established its defense as a matter of law or whether a jury should decide the mayor’s claims.
Questions
What are the correct standards of liability and proof in this case? Explain.
Is the trial court likely to find that the candidate has established a valid truth defense and there is no need to go to trial? Explain.
Is the trial court likely to find that the newspaper has established a valid republication defense and that there is no need to go to trial? Explain.