DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST FULMER DISMISSED
Fulmer has at least one less headache today now that a 480 Million dollar suit against him was dismissed. For those not fully apprised of all the recent ill will between the Vols and the Crimson Tide, the suit was filed by former Bama player Kenny Smith and his mother claiming they were defamed when Fulmer blew the whistle on some recruiting shenanigans in Tuscaloosa. The thing that I am trying to figure out is where did they get the $480,000,000 figure for damages????
Loading ...
1
It’s mustache Wednesday. This post needs a Johnnie Cochran photo or something to ’stache it up.
Comment by LD — November 23, 2005 @ 12:58 pm
2
I say skip CFB for a day and find the stache from that guy on Gonzaga’s basketball team. Saw it on ESPN this morning. Crazy. They couldn’t stop talking about it.
Comment by CFR — November 23, 2005 @ 1:05 pm
3
This ruling strikes me as a little fishy. Fulmer is on tape saying that this player’s mother is having an affair with an Alabama assistant. No one now disputes that it is untrue.
So what’s the legal complication? It’s certainly libelous on its face — you can’t go around publicly charging private individuals with having affairs. I predict this is reinstated on appeal. Also, this story misses the bigger picture, which is that because the other count will proceed, Fulmer will have to be deposed, something he has long sought to avoid.
Comment by WSJ — November 23, 2005 @ 3:06 pm
4
If all Fulmer told the investigators was that he heard rumors of an affair, or left himself similar wiggle room, there’s no slander. He probably wouldn’t be dumb enough to positively state something he had no way of knowing, and we know he had no way of “knowing” because it wasn’t true.
But, you argue, what if he THOUGHT it was true? Then he uses the good faith defense, and there’s still no slander. Slander or defamation requires that a person acts in bad faith, speaking about things they knew to be untrue or otherwise acting with obvious dishonesty (like notifying workplace security that a co-worker is stalking you when all he did was wait for you after a meeting, at your mutual place of business, then follow you to your car, without acting threatening or otherwise icky. Especially if you then tell someone else that security is looking into him, or something).
Phil’s situation sounds like a very easy case to beat, and the dismissal is completely surprising.
Comment by mayday — November 23, 2005 @ 5:10 pm
5
UNsurprising, even. Drool….
Comment by mayday — November 23, 2005 @ 5:10 pm
6
Anything Judas Brutus says is obviously in bad faith….
Comment by Newspaper Hack — November 23, 2005 @ 7:28 pm