Case Number
LCA 4740/00
Date Decided
8-14-2001
Decision Type
Appellate
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Facts: The appellants are a couple who had a baby girl born whom they did not take home from the hospital. She was born with birth defects. The respondents were involved in the publication of two articles on the matter of the girl. In one article details of her birth were given and it was written that she was abandoned by her parents. It was written in the subtitle of the article that the mother of the baby is a drug addict. In the other article the birth defects of the daughter and the abandonment were published. The appellants sued the respondents on the basis of the Defamation Law 5725-1965 for these publications. The suit was filed for the amount of 100,000 NIS for reasons related to filing fees. The Magistrates Court (Justice A. Abraham) determined as to what was written in the first article that the mother was a drug addict that this constituted defamation and the respondents did not fulfill the requirements for the defenses of truthfulness or good faith. The Magistrates Court awarded the appellants 100,000 NIS in compensation and also ordered the respondents to pay 15,000 NIS in court fees. The respondents appealed to the District Court which reduced the compensation to 40,000 NIS, the District Court also reduced the award of court fees and set it at 6,000 NIS, and determined that the compensation award would only be in favor of the appellant. The appellants were granted leave to appeal and appealed this decision.
Held: The Court determined that the non-economic damage had been proven in this case, including: damage to the appellant’s reputation in that it was written about her that she is a drug addict; and severe injury to her feelings during her difficult times as it was hinted that the daughter was born with a birth defect due to the mother’s drug addiction. Furthermore, the respondents did not minimize the damage by publishing a correction and increased the damage by continuing to claim the truthfulness of the publication though they knew that there was a mistake in the publication. In this situation the compensation that was determined in the Magistrates Court (100,000 NIS) was proper. Also, for the purposes of this appeal, the Court rejected the stance of the defendant that Amendment no. 6 of Prohibition of Defamation Law, in adding section 7A(b) to the law, established a maximum threshold for compensation without proof of damages. The Court overturned the District Court’s decision, reinstated the Magistrates Court award of 100,000 in compensation and ordered the respondents to pay the appellants’ attorneys’ fees in the amount of 30,000 NIS, as well as court fees.
JUSTICES
Keywords
Torts -- Compensation, Torts -- Defamation
