04.04.2013 Views

99139 - Valadez v. Emmis Communications

99139 - Valadez v. Emmis Communications

99139 - Valadez v. Emmis Communications

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

On January 10, 2005, <strong>Valadez</strong> filed a petition naming <strong>Emmis</strong> <strong>Communications</strong>,<br />

The Associated Press, Journal <strong>Communications</strong>, Inc., and Journal Broadcast Group of<br />

Kansas, Inc. as defendants. The petition raised claims based on invasion of privacy -<br />

intrusion on private concerns; invasion of privacy - publicity to private life; invasion of<br />

privacy - false light; outrageous conduct; and defamation. <strong>Valadez</strong> subsequently<br />

voluntarily dismissed his claim against The Associated Press.<br />

On October 20, 2006, a jury found that the defendants' conduct was defamatory as<br />

well as extreme and outrageous. The jury awarded damages of $800,000 for mental<br />

suffering, shame, and humiliation and $300,000 for injury to reputation.<br />

On January 10, 2007, before a journal entry was settled and signed, the defendants<br />

filed a suggestion of death suggesting that <strong>Valadez</strong> had died on November 27, 2006. The<br />

district court granted a motion by Melanie <strong>Valadez</strong>, acting as administrator of <strong>Valadez</strong>'<br />

estate, to substitute the estate as the plaintiff in the action. It held, however, that the<br />

defamation action abated when <strong>Valadez</strong> died. The court found that the extreme and<br />

outrageous conduct action survived <strong>Valadez</strong>' death. The court reversed the award of<br />

$300,000 for damage to reputation because of the abated defamation action and reduced<br />

the award of $800,000 to $250,000, citing the K.S.A. 60-19a02 limitation on awards for<br />

noneconomic losses.<br />

The defendants filed a timely notice of appeal, and the Estate filed a timely notice<br />

of cross-appeal.<br />

We initially address the question of whether the plaintiff proved damages<br />

sufficient to sustain an action for outrage.<br />

6

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!