Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortdefendantliabilitytrialmotionsummary judgmentappellant
plaintiffdefendantliabilityappealtrialpleamotionsummary judgmentcase lawappellantappelleemotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Bussard v. Minimed, Inc., 105 Cal.App.4th 798, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 675, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 756, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 913
View Case »
Holcomb v. Georgia Pacific, LLC, 128 Nev. 614, 289 P.3d 188, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 18,982, 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 56
View Case »
Stearns v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 379 F.Supp.3d 102
View Case »
Lowe v. City of Gastonia, 211 N.C. 564, 191 S.E. 7
View Case »
Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112, 45 P.3d 1171, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 709, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4331, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5505
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Smith v. Linn, 386 Pa.Super. 392, 563 A.2d 123, 16 Media L. Rep. 2228

Facts

Patricia Smith died in July 1977 after following a liquid protein diet from the book 'The Last Chance Diet.' The book was authored by Dr. Robert Linn and published by Lyle Stuart, Inc. The appellant claimed that the diet caused Smith's cardiac failure. The case was initially brought against multiple defendants, but Lyle Stuart, Inc. remained as the only defendant by the time of the summary judgment motion. The trial court found that the publisher was protected under the First Amendment.

Patricia Smith purchased a copy of “The Last Chance Diet” in January of 1977. She followed the diet under the care of her physician, Howard Rosenfeld, M.D. She had lost over 100 pounds by June 1977 when she died from cardiac failure that plaintiff alleges was caused by decedent's following the diet.

Issue

Whether the publisher of a diet book can be held liable for the death of a reader who followed the diet, given the protections of the First Amendment.

On appeal appellant argues the trial court erred in basing its decision on the first amendment of the United States Constitution and thereby immunizing the appellee publishing company from civil liability for its publication.

Rule

The First Amendment protects publishers from civil liability for the content of their publications, unless an established exception applies.

As appellant does not point us to any established exception to first amendment protection, we cannot find the court erred in finding publication of The Last Chance Diet to be protected under the first amendment.

Analysis

The court analyzed the appellant's arguments against the First Amendment protections, concluding that the publication of 'The Last Chance Diet' did not fall under any recognized exceptions to First Amendment immunity. The court found that the appellant's claims did not demonstrate that the book constituted incitement to immediate action or that it was a product subject to liability under tort law.

The court, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, must ignore controverted facts contained in the pleadings.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the publisher was protected by the First Amendment and that there was no genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial.

Because we decide today the court properly granted summary judgment, we need not address the alternative argument raised by appellee and responded to by appellant in his reply brief that Lyle Stuart, Inc., is not the proper defendant-publisher since Bantam Books, Inc., published the paperback edition which was purchased by the decedent and appellee published the hard cover edition.

Who won?

Lyle Stuart, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that the First Amendment protected the publisher from civil liability for the content of the diet book.

As appellant has not persuaded this Court by any existing case law that its cause of action against Lyle Stuart, Inc., can withstand judicial scrutiny, in view of the first amendment right of the publisher to publish the diet book in question, we find no error on the part of the trial court in determining there was no genuine issue of material fact necessitating trial and in accordingly entering summary judgment.

You must be