Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 51-5-11 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 51-5-11 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 51-5-11

TITLE 51 TORTS

Section 5. Libel and Slander, 51-5-1 through 51-5-12.

ARTICLE 4 LIABILITY OF SPACE FLIGHT ENTITIES

"WARNING AND AGREEMENT UNDER GEORGIA LAW THERE IS NO LIABILITY FOR INJURY, DEATH, OR OTHER LOSS RESULTING FROM ANY INHERENT RISKS OF SPACE FLIGHT ACTIVITIES. SUCH INHERENT RISKS OF SPACE FLIGHT ACTIVITIES INCLUDE, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE POTENTIAL FOR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY, SICKNESS, PERMANENT DISABILITY, PARALYSIS, AND LOSS OF LIFE; EXPOSURE TO EXTREME CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES; ACCIDENTS, CONTACT, OR COLLISION WITH OTHER SPACE FLIGHT PARTICIPANTS, SPACE FLIGHT VEHICLES, AND EQUIPMENT; AND DANGERS ARISING FROM ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS AND EQUIPMENT FAILURE.

51-5-11. Admissibility of evidence in libel action concerning correction and retraction; effect thereof on damages.

  1. In any civil action for libel which charges the publication of an erroneous statement alleged to be libelous, it shall be relevant and competent evidence for either party to prove that the plaintiff requested retraction in writing at least seven days prior to the filing of the action or omitted to request retraction in this manner.
  2. In any such action, the defendant may allege and give proof of the following matters, as applicable:
      1. That the matter alleged to have been published and to be libelous was published without malice;
      2. That the defendant, in a regular issue of the newspaper or other publication in question, within seven days after receiving written demand, or in the next regular issue of the newspaper or other publication following receipt of the demand if the next regular issue was not published within seven days after receiving the demand, corrected and retracted the allegedly libelous statement in as conspicuous and public a manner as that in which the alleged libelous statement was published; and
      3. That, if the plaintiff so requested, the retraction and correction were accompanied, in the same issue, by an editorial in which the allegedly libelous statement was specifically repudiated; or
    2. That no request for correction and retraction was made in writing by the plaintiff.
  3. Upon proof of the facts specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) of this Code section, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any punitive damages and the defendant shall be liable only to pay actual damages. The defendant may plead the publication of the correction, retraction, or explanation, including the editorial, if demanded, in mitigation of damages.

(Ga. L. 1958, p. 54, § 1; Ga. L. 1960, p. 198, § 1; Ga. L. 1986, p. 272, § 1.)

Law reviews.

- For comment, "Room for Error Online: Revising Georgia's Retraction Statute to Accommodate the Rise of Internet Media," see 28 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 923 (2012).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

"Publication," as used in O.C.G.A. § 51-5-11(b), means a communication made to any person other than the party libeled. Mathis v. Cannon, 276 Ga. 16, 573 S.E.2d 376 (2002).

Verdict awarding general damages in a libel suit filed by an attorney against a former client, which showed that the client published facts intimating that the attorney bribed judges, contrary to O.C.G.A. § 16-10-2, was upheld as: (1) the jury could reasonably conclude that the attorney was a limited public figure, and was properly charged on that issue; (2) the client failed to seek any remedy regarding the verdict entered; (3) the trial court did not err in prohibiting the client from offering testimony about corrupt individuals who were exposed as a result of the publication about the attorney; and (4) based on the evidence of the publication, on the client's web site neither a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict in the client's favor was authorized. Milum v. Banks, 283 Ga. App. 864, 642 S.E.2d 892 (2007).

Statements made in radio talk show.

- O.C.G.A. § 51-5-11 is clearly inapplicable to defamatory statements made in a radio talk show, it being clear, giving the words "newspaper or other publication" their ordinary signification, that the General Assembly intended that the section apply exclusively to the printed media. Williamson v. Lucas, 171 Ga. App. 695, 320 S.E.2d 800 (1984).

Subsection (c) applies only to libel.

- The retraction provisions of subsection (c) of O.C.G.A. § 51-5-11 apply only to libel actions, that is, actions against a publisher, and not to any case based on an alleged slanderous statement made by a defendant to a newspaper reporter. Van Geter v. Housing Auth., 167 Ga. App. 432, 306 S.E.2d 707 (1983), aff'd, 252 Ga. 196, 312 S.E.2d 309 (1984).

Plain language of O.C.G.A. § 51-5-11 stated that the section is applicable only to any civil action for libel; a trial court erred by barring punitive damages arising from a claim of tortious interference with business relations based on O.C.G.A. § 51-5-11. U.S. Micro Corp. v. Atlantix Global Sys., LLC, 278 Ga. App. 599, 630 S.E.2d 416 (2006).

Failure to request retraction on Internet bulletin board posting.

- Georgia's retraction statute, O.C.G.A. § 51-5-11, applies to libel actions involving publications on an Internet bulletin board; thus, since a limited-purpose public figure failed to request a retraction, although the public figure asked the Internet service provider to delete the messages, the public figure was precluded from obtaining punitive damages. Mathis v. Cannon, 276 Ga. 16, 573 S.E.2d 376 (2002).

Failure to request charge on retraction.

- When, in a defamation action, the defendants failed to submit to the trial court a charge based on subsection (c) of O.C.G.A. § 51-5-11, they may not question on appeal the trial court's failure to give a charge on retraction, in view of O.C.G.A. § 5-5-24(b). Williamson v. Lucas, 166 Ga. App. 403, 304 S.E.2d 412 (1983).

Cited in Fuqua Television, Inc. v. Fleming, 134 Ga. App. 731, 215 S.E.2d 694 (1975); Jones v. Neighbor Newspapers, Inc., 142 Ga. App. 365, 236 S.E.2d 23 (1977); Stange v. Cox Enters., Inc., 211 Ga. App. 731, 440 S.E.2d 503 (1994); Schafer v. Time, Inc., 142 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 1998); No Witness, LLC v. Cumulus Media Partners, LLC, F. Supp. 2d (N.D. Ga. Nov. 13, 2007).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 50 Am. Jur. 2d, Libel and Slander, §§ 319 et seq., 383, 456 et seq., 471 et seq.

ALR.

- Retraction as affecting right of action or amount of damages for libel or slander, 13 A.L.R. 794.

Libel and slander: who is protected by statute restricting recovery unless retraction is demanded, 84 A.L.R.3d 1249.

Individual and corporate liability for libel and slander in electronic communications, including e-mail, internet and websites, 3 A.L.R.6th 153.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 51-5-11

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Mathis v. Cannon, 573 S.E.2d 376 (Ga. 2002).

Cited 68 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 25, 2002 | 276 Ga. 16, 31 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1613, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 3548

...fter we granted certiorari. Under these circumstances, we choose to rule on the statutory interpretation issue, which involves a question of law, rather than allow an erroneous court of appeals' interpretation to stand as the law of this state. OCGA § 51-5-11, the state retraction statute, provides that a plaintiff in any libel action shall not be entitled to any punitive damages if the defendant corrects and retracts the libelous statement "in a regular issue of the newspaper or other publication in question" after receiving a written demand....
...OCGA § 51-5-3 explains what constitutes publication of libel: "A libel is published as soon as it is communicated to any person other than the party libeled." OCGA § 51-5-10 refers to the "publication or utterance" of a statement. Finally, the retraction statute, OCGA § 51-5-11, uses the word in three places....
...y group's monthly electronic newsletter to its members reporting on congressional voting. Moreover, we find unpersuasive the appellate court's rationale in this case for following the "plain language" of the retraction statutes. [34] Nothing in OCGA § 51-5-11 precludes applying the retraction statute to individuals....
...uence the outcome of the debate concerning the controversy, I would affirm the Court of Appeals' determination that Cannon was not a limited-purpose public figure. Nor can I agree with the majority's consideration and strained interpretation of OCGA § 51-5-11, the retraction statute, so as to preclude Cannon's claim for punitive damages. I first note that as a procedural matter, the retraction issue is not properly before this Court. Mathis did not enumerate as error the Court of Appeals' ruling on the applicability of OCGA § 51-5-11 and his briefs are equally devoid of any argument or citation to authority on the issue. Under our own Supreme Court rules, the issue either is not before the Court or was abandoned by Mathis by his failure to raise it in his briefs. See USCR 22. Accordingly, the majority's decision as to the application of OCGA § 51-5-11 to this case constitutes nothing more than an improper advisory opinion....
...dants who regularly publish information by mandating that the libel defendant correct and retract the allegedly libelous statement in the "next regular issue of the newspaper or other publication" following receipt of the demand for retraction. OCGA § 51-5-11(b)(1)(B)....
...cations." See Ga. L.1960, p. 198, § 1. Where the language of an act is plain and unequivocal, judicial construction is not only unnecessary but is forbidden. City of Jesup v. Bennett, 226 Ga. 606(2), 176 S.E.2d 81 (1970). The plain language of OCGA § 51-5-11 requires a request for a retraction as a precondition to the recovery of punitive damages only against libel defendants who disseminate information or engage in discourse on a regular basis through newspaper, magazine, or other publication. See Williamson v. Lucas, 171 Ga.App. 695(4), 320 S.E.2d 800 (1984). Thus, according to its plain language, OCGA § 51-5-11's requirement that the retraction be placed in the "next regular issue" has no application to an individual libel *389 defendant who, like Mathis, on a single occasion posted electronic messages in an Internet chat room....
...ncapable of complying with the statute's requirement that a retraction be published in the "next regular issue." Accordingly, if the issue were properly before this Court, I would agree with the Court of Appeals that the retraction provision of OCGA § 51-5-11 is inapplicable to the facts of this case....
...[33] Cf. A. Chapar, Peach Sheet, Torts: Defamation and Abusive Litigation, 6 GA. ST. U.L.REV. 330, 331 & n. 8 (1989) (legislature enacted OCGA § 51-5-12 to fill the void in the statutory scheme created by the decision in Williamson v. Lucas limiting OCGA § 51-5-11 only to the print media)....