Opinion
67465.
DECIDED JANUARY 3, 1984.
Libel. Gwinnett Superior Court. Before Judge Jackson.
Robert D. Cheeley, Joseph E. Cheeley, for appellant.
Halsey G. Knapp, Jr., for appellees.
Appellant Buice, a member of the Gwinnett County Commission, brought an action for libel by broadcast ("defamacast") against appellees Buford Broad casting, Inc. d/b/a WDYX-AM and WGCO-FM (Buford); Robert P. Joseph, president of Buford; and Peter J. Lyden, Buford's news director, in connection with Lyden's broadcast of a report on a meeting of the county commission. Joseph, Lyden, and Buford moved for summary judgment, contending that Buice had failed to prove "actual malice" under the standard of New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 ( 84 SC 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686) (1964), and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (94 SC 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789) (1974). Buford and Lyden also moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of conditional privilege under OCGA § 51-5-11 (Code Ann. § 105-720). The court denied the latter motion but granted those for summary judgment. Buice appeals from this judgment, enumerating as error the court's rulings regarding conditional privilege, OCGA §§ 51-5-7 (Code Ann. § 105-704), 51-5-11 (Code Ann. § 105-720), and absence of actual malice. Held:
In a well-drafted order the trial court made full and detailed findings of fact and concluded as a matter of law that appellees, as defendants moving for summary judgment, had successfully carried their burden of conclusively negating at least one essential element of plaintiff's case; i.e., actual malice as defined in New York Times v. Sullivan, and Gertz v. Robert Welch, supra, and Georgia cases which follow these two Supreme Court decisions. Sec e.g., Pierce v. Pacific Southern Co., 166 Ga. App. 113 ( 303 S.E.2d 316) (1983); Byers v. Southeastern Newspaper Corp., 161 Ga. App. 717 ( 288 S.E.2d 698) (1982); Williams v. Church's Fried Chicken, 158 Ga. App. 26 ( 279 S.E.2d 465) (1981). See also Lawrence v. Gardner, 154 Ga. App. 722 ( 270 S.E.2d 9) (1980). The trial court further concluded that the denial of the motion for partial summary judgment would not affect the awards of summary judgment.
We find no error in the proceedings below or in the determinations of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed. Banke and Carley, JJ., concur.