Monday, April 13, 2009

Woman Sues Blog Commenter for Defamation

This seems unjustified. 

APPLETON — A pedestrian who suffered paralysis after being struck by a drunken driver is suing a Combined Locks man for defamation over a fictitious blog posting.

Tiffany Pohl of Kaukauna seeks unspecified damages from John A. Schmidt, 617 Buchanan Road.

Pohl, now 20, was struck the night of April 1, 2007, while she was walking with her friend, Kayla Lamers, 22, along Delanglade Road in Kaukauna.

Pohl is now a quadriplegic and Lamers received minor injuries in the crash.

The driver of the car, Randall Ashauer, 54, Kaukauna, was acquitted of two counts of causing injury by drunken driving in a March 2008 jury trial.

However, Ashauer was found guilty of drunken driving and became the target of civil suits filed by both victims that were settled out of court.

In the days after the crash, a Web site was created to share the progress of Pohl’s medical condition and visitors were invited to post comments. One of those postings came from a writer who signed her posting as Sandy Anderson of Kaukauna.

In the posting she said, “I swerved to avoid the 2 girls that were walking on the road wearing dark clothing as did the car in front of me. I wish now that I would have stopped and given you both a ride or had you walk on the other side of the road facing traffic.”

Police, using the IP address, traced the posting to Schmidt’s computer, although the person who authored the note was never established.

The suit claims the posting has caused Pohl, “a diminished past and future ability to enjoy life and/or emotional pain and suffering as a result of defendants’ defamatory statement.”

That was a pretty innocuous comment.  Sure it may be false, but it hardly seems like anything that would cause “diminished past and future ability to enjoy life.”

(7) Comments
Posted by Owen at 0725 hrs
Culture + Law + Technology

  1. I wouldn’t be surprised if the driver was judgment proof, and his liability insurance caps, plus any UM/UIM coverage, were insufficient to fully cover the bills in light of the seriousness of her injuries.

    In other words, sometimes bad shit happens to good people, and there’s not much you can do about it.

    Posted by Jed on April 13, 2009 at 0936 hrs


  2. I think Jed is right on this one; this is probably about an initial award that is proving to be inadequate to pay for her lifetime medical costs, let alone her emotional damages and distress.

    I do find it curious that the driver was convicted of drunken driving but acquited of causing injury by drunken driving where one of the victims is now a quadraplegic???  Something’s missing from this story or something went horribly wrong at the trial.

    This lawsuit seems “unjustified” to me as well, but in light of the seriousness of her injuries, I’ll draw the line before calling it frivolous.  The fact that this clown now has to defend himself in this legal action because of his compulsion to ficticiously post on a blog designed to keep poelple updated on the woman’s condition brings to mind two things: 1. Don’t “crash a party” unless you really belong and want to be 100% involved.  2. Only the lawyers will get paid in this case.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 13, 2009 at 1055 hrs


  3. I fail to see how the comment could be construed as defamatory.  At the worst, it basically says the girls may have been partially at fault for wearing dark clothing and walking on the wrong side of the road.  But that’s hardly defamatory.

    Posted by MommaBlogger on April 13, 2009 at 1103 hrs


  4. Her lawyer’s hyperbole aside, it seems to me like it’s going to be nearly impossible to prove the statement is false.  From what I have read, there was testimony at the trial to the effect that several cars did have to swerve to avoid the two girls before they were hit.

    The blog poster was kind of a douche for making the comment, though.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 13, 2009 at 1105 hrs


  5. If the blog commenter was falsely claiming to be an eyewitness to the girls’ unsafe behavior, then I can certainly understand why it is actionable. If the commenter had given that (fictitious) testimony in court, it would be perjury.

    Posted by Ordinary Jill on April 13, 2009 at 2103 hrs


  6. Good luck to the plaintiff in proving damage.  This sounds like a case for the Law Offices of James Sokolove.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 14, 2009 at 0308 hrs


  7. This is just another reason why I like your website. I like your style of writing you tell your stories without out sending us to 5 other sites to complete the story.

    Posted by asian on May 05, 2009 at 1619 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.