Re: 5/21/03 - National Law Journal: $3M Award for Libel on Internet Upheld; A student's Web site raises jurisdictional issues in a state appeal
$3M Award for Libel on Internet Upheld
A student's Web site raises jurisdictional issues in a state appeal
Dee McAree
The National Law Journal
05-21-2003
In its first case on Internet jurisdiction, the North Dakota Supreme Court has affirmed a $3 million libel award to a university professor who was defamed on a student's Web site.
The ruling is the latest in an area of law -- Internet jurisdiction -- that judges are grappling with across the country. Wagner v. Miskin, No. 20020200.
A key issue in the North Dakota case, and many cases involving Internet jurisdiction, is whether courts can stretch the long arm of the law to nonresident defendants whose alleged crimes are committed on the Internet.
A number of state courts are applying the "effects test," derived from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 804 S. Ct. 1482 (1984), which examines whether the Internet activity was targeted to the forum state. In Calder, a California resident sued a Florida-based author of a National Enquirer article, as well as the magazine, for libel. The high court said the exercise of jurisdiction was proper because of the foreseeable "effects" in California of the nonresident defendants' activities. The alleged harm and injury to reputation would occur in California.
In the North Dakota case, Glenda Miskin was a student at the University of North Dakota, where Professor John Wagner taught physics.
In April 1999, a university committee expelled Miskin for allegedly using the school's e-mail system to send Wagner harassing and sexually explicit messages. Wagner followed with a lawsuit against the former student, alleging that slanderous statements posted on her Web site had interfered with his business relationships. A jury awarded him $3 million and a district court upheld the verdict.
JURISDICTION ESTABLISHED
Miskin, now a Minnesota resident, appealed to the state's high court, asserting that the lower North Dakota court "lacked jurisdiction over the Internet." The court disagreed. Articles about Wagner and the ongoing litigation were the primary topics of Miskin's Web site. It contained links to news about the university and its staff. Those factors were sufficient for the court to conclude that Miskin had "directly targeted North Dakota with her Web site, specifically North Dakota resident John Wagner."
Wagner and Miskin both acted pro se in the appeals. Wagner had a lawyer, William Elliott McKechnie of Grand Forks, N.D., during the trial. The Internet was just a tool, McKechnie said, and he never saw it as an impediment to bringing a libel case against Miskin.
"Every aspect of Internet jurisdiction is still unsettled," said Raymond Ku, who teaches Internet law at Seton Hall University. "But we're starting to see a trend toward coming up with a single rule."
Ku said most states are moving toward the "effects test," or a similar principle of traditional jurisdiction law called "purposeful availment."
"Calder is being cited a lot right now," said Daniel West, co-chairman of the e-business group at Fredrikson & Byron in Minneapolis, who has written about Internet jurisdiction. Most courts are taking a narrow reading of the law, he said.
If they didn't, posting something on a Web site could potentially invite a flood of litigation from anywhere, he asserted.
States including Iowa, Minnesota and Virginia have each decided cases that denied jurisdiction over the Internet, said West, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Minnesota case.
Generally, the courts' tests seem to be whether the Web site content is directed toward a national or state-specific audience.
In the Virginia case brought by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, a local federal court said that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit against an Illinois-based Web operator who, Falwell alleged, had defamed him. The Virginia court said the Web site was directed toward a national audience, and had not expressly targeted Virginia residents. Falwell v. Cohn, No. CV 6:02CV00040 (W.D. Va.).
Copyright 2003 ALM Properties, Inc. All rights reserved.
=====
North Dakota Supreme Court CalendarWagner v. Miskin - Summary
Wagner v. Miskin - No. 20020200
Case Summary
Glenda Miskin appeals from a jury verdict which awarded John Wagner $3,000,000 in damages for libel, slander, and intentional interference with a business relationship.
In the fall of 1998, Miskin was a student in a University of North Dakota (UND) physics class taught by Professor Wagner. The parties have very different descriptions of the nature of their relationship. Wagner described, for example, how Miskin sent him harassing and sexually explicit e-mail messages, posted defamatory articles about him on her website, and told people false statements about him professionally and personally. Miskin asserted her contacts with Wagner were consensual, and the statements she made--oral, written, and electronic--were privileged.
In April 1999, the UND Student Relations Committee held an administrative hearing at UND,and found Miskin had violated student policies by stalking and harassing Wagner, misusing the computer systems, and disrupting the Physics Department and other campus offices. This decision, upheld on appeal, resulted in her indefinite suspension from UND beginning with the fall 1999 semester.
In June 2000, Wagner filed a complaint in district court alleging Miskin defamed him and intentionally interfered with his business relations. When Wagner moved for summary judgment, the court granted the motion; however, the court later vacated the judgment due to concerns that Miskin did not receive the summary judgment papers. In November 2001, the court dismissed Miskin's cross-claims against UND and multiple UND employees.
In the spring of 2002, a jury trial was held to determine the liability and damages issues of Wagner's claim, and the jury awarded Wagner damages of 3 million dollars. Miskin represented herself. She moved to set aside the verdict on several grounds and made other post-judgment motions as well. The district court denied her motions, finding the jury had determined her statements were false and therefore not privileged. Also, the court stated the damages awarded were compensatory, in light of the damage to Wagner's reputation.
Miskin raises multiple issues on appeal. She argues her statements were protected by constitutional or qualified privileges, and the court lacked jurisdiction over Internet publications. She also claims she was entitled to an absolute privilege for statements made during the UND administrative hearing. She asserts her statements made to a counselor were confidential and privileged, and the damages awarded by the jury were exemplary and not related to any evidence of actual damages. Miskin, who represented herself, also argues she did not have effective assistance of counsel at trial.
Wagner has filed a motion to dismiss, which will be heard with the merits of the case, and a brief in support of the motion to dismiss. He did not file an appellee brief and is relying on his motion to dismiss and the supporting brief.
court.state.nd.us
=====
All sorts of case details:
court.state.nd.us
=====
Racy site on the case:
undnews.com |
