Court Flips Food Lion in Favor of ABC Appeals Ruling Is a Setback for Wielding News-Gathering Torts against Journalists

By Moscou, Jim | Editor & Publisher, October 23, 1999 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Court Flips Food Lion in Favor of ABC Appeals Ruling Is a Setback for Wielding News-Gathering Torts against Journalists


Moscou, Jim, Editor & Publisher


If there was one point of agreement in the Food Lion vs. ABC legal battle, it was the devastation the expose caused. It aired Nov. 2, 1992, on the network's "Prime Time Live" news show, which - using hidden cameras worn by two producers who surreptitiously gained employment at two separate Food Lion stores - exposed behind-the-scenes handling of putrid food. Caught on tape: old meat and fish repackaged and sold, and expired chicken smeared with barbeque sauce to hide the stench.

By the end of the following day, Food Lion executives watched the company's stock plummet more than 11% - an estimated $1.9 billion.

The grocer fought back by wreaking havoc in how ABC News conducts its business. It made a multibillion-dollar legal claim based not on libel but on the way in which the producers infiltrated the stores. Food Lion won a $5.5-million jury verdict in punitive damages (later reduced to $315,000) in 1997 on claims the producers and network committed fraud and trespass, and "breached their duty to loyalty" to the grocer. The decision pinned the case as a First Amendment "poster child" of what some call a new era of media litigation - news-gathering tort lawsuits, which attack a story's reporting, rather than its content.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit swung the pendulum back in ABC's, and journalism's, favor when it ruled 2-1 that the $315,000 award tied directly to the fraud claim would be thrown out. The court let stand the two other Food Lion victories - trespass and breach of loyalty - along with the original jury awards for damage: $1 for each.

"Food Lion was hoping to send a message that what was done to them was awful, and winning big damages would help make that point," said Lee Levine, an expert in news-gathering torts and an attorney at the Washington firm of Levine, Sullivan & Koch. "Well, '$2' says that's what their claim was worth."

The grocer faxed a press release stating it was disappointed in the verdict, but noted the court did uphold two of its claims.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Court Flips Food Lion in Favor of ABC Appeals Ruling Is a Setback for Wielding News-Gathering Torts against Journalists
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?