{ "id": 2554554, "name": "George Suchomel, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suburban Life Newspapers, Inc., and Karl Bell, DefendantsAppellees", "name_abbreviation": "Suchomel v. Suburban Life Newspapers, Inc.", "decision_date": "1967-06-06", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 50,852", "first_page": "239", "last_page": "247", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "84 Ill. App. 2d 239" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "206 NE2d 525", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "58 Ill App2d 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2600945 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/58/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "328 Ill App 375", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5652244 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/328/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Ill App 2d 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5208327 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/24/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Ill App2d 358", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5233009 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/32/0358-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 Kans 525", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 518471 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan/180/0525-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ill App2d 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5181584 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/17/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 NE2d 746", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 Ill2d 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2879392 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "115" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/34/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "227 NE2d 164", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 Ill App2d 76", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2560967 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/82/0076-01" ] }, { "cite": "383 US 75", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6167317 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/383/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 US 254", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 379234 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "p 284" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/376/0254-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 668, "char_count": 12100, "ocr_confidence": 0.623, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3356804653833343e-07, "percentile": 0.6300807498815568 }, "sha256": "0fe8099e8cd86fd2c396aba03f3bf1b6112d814ba4732cb83f8cffbd04836344", "simhash": "1:5a7e5ab02daa7f60", "word_count": 2043 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:36:35.235024+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "George Suchomel, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suburban Life Newspapers, Inc., and Karl Bell, DefendantsAppellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE BRYANT\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from a summary judgment against plaintiff granted on defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s libel action. Plaintiff, George Suchomel\u2019s theory on this appeal is that it was error for the trial court to allow the motion for summary judgment because the article complained of was not privileged and was libelous per se. In the alternative, the plaintiff urges that any privilege the publication may have had was lost because of the existence of malice on the part of the defendants.\nThe alleged libelous publication is a newspaper headline, subheadline and article which appeared on December 14, 1963, in defendants\u2019 newspaper. The headline stated, \u201cCity Policeman Accused of Burglary\u201d; the sub-headline read, \u201cCountryside Sergeant Denies Charges Brought Before City Council.\u201d The remainder of the article is as follows:\n\u201cBy Karl Bell\n\u201cFor the second time in three months Countryside\u2019s police force was placed into the limelight Wednesday when, after a city council meeting, a resident read a statement reportedly received from an area woman who contended, among other things, that Sgt. George Suchomel had twice within the past year, and while on duty made break-ins in the trailer court which is in the city.\n\u201cAccording to the statement read by Robert J. Brinkman, 5339 Kensington, the woman, a divorcee and mother of two, also charges that the two often spent \u2018from one to seven hours\u2019 together when the sergeant was supposed to be on night shift and they spent time drinking liquor in the squad car.\n\u201cSgt. Suchomel denied all the charges.\n\u201cBrinkman refused to identify the writer, although requested by Mayor Melvin F. Eggert. Brinkman stated that her identity has been known to the mayor and to Police Chief John Girard for weeks.\n\u201cIN THE STATEMENT read by Brinkman, the letter writer claims that the sergeant, in uniform and using the squad car, would pick her up and then they would drive to a tavern where he would buy liquor which they would share as they sat in the police car.\n\u201cThe woman contends, according to Brinkman, that Sgt. Suchomel would ignore radio calls and often would lie about the location of the squad car.\n\u201cAlso stated was that several times the sergeant fired his weapon into the air \u2018for no apparent reason\u2019 and that he had twice broken into residences in the trailer court in Countryside.\n\u201cThe letter writer also was quoted as stating that she had informed the sheriff\u2019s police about the sergeant\u2019s activities and that she later denied them under pressure to do so by the sergeant.\n\u201cSgt. Suchomel has denied the allegations.\n\u201cHe told The Suburban Life yesterday T was not at the meeting so I can\u2019t say I heard the actual statement read by Mr. Brinkman, but I\u2019ve heard what was read and, except for the fact that I know the woman who I think Mr. Brinkman is referring to, there\u2019s not a charge in her statement that is true.\n\u201c \u2018I\u2019ve told the mayor I have not done any of these things. So far I haven\u2019t been given a chance to formally answer any of the charges, for no formal complaint has been made.\u2019\n\u201cBrinkman stated that the mayor had known about the contentions, as brought out by the woman, before the mayor read to the council on September 25, a report from the sheriff\u2019s office in which the sheriff stated his investigations of earlier charges against the chief and the sergeant had no basis for criminal action.\n\u201cBrinkman also contended that charges as brought out now by the woman have been confirmed by an investigation of the sheriff\u2019s police and that the mayor has received an affidavit from the sheriff\u2019s office signed by the woman.\n\u201cHe stated the mayor has been \u2018holding out\u2019 by not disclosing the material to the city council.\n\u201cWednesday night the mayor said he would release the contents of the affidavit to the council members.\n\u201cMayor Eggert told The Suburban Life yesterday that on Thursday he contacted the woman in question and that she implied she would be willing to sign a formal complaint that night.\n\u201c \u2018The formal complaint was all written up, but when she appeared at the city hall Thursday night she refused to sign. She gave no reason.\n\u201c \u2018The question now is, inasmuch as no formal charges have been filed, which group can take any legal action, the council or the civil service board through the police commission ?\u2019\n\u201cHe said he hoped to secure a legal opinion on the matter by today.\n\u201c T think we have to clear the air and see that the man has every right to be heard as to whether he\u2019s guilty or innocent. Surely, she also has every right to prove her side.\u2019\n\u201cBrinkman, along with former officers Richard Kocek and Richard Martin are defendants in a libel suit brought against them by Police Chief John Girard.\n\u201cHe seeks approximately $200,000 damages from each.\n\u201cWednesday night the city council accepted the resignation of Officer Richard Martin.\u201d\nAt the time of the alleged libel, the plaintiff was employed as Sergeant of the Police Department of the City of Countryside, and was also Juvenile Officer for the municipality. In September 1963, Suchomel became the subject of serious public charges concerning his official conduct and fitness for office. Two of his fellow officers charged in sworn statements that the plaintiff had been intoxicated on duty, had blocked criminal investigations and had consorted with known members of \u201cthe syndicate.\u201d A woman, said to be the mistress of plaintiff, made accusations against the plaintiff, including charges that Suchomel had had intercourse with her while on duty, and that the two of them consumed alcoholic beverages while he was on duty, and that he ignored orders given to him over the radio while he was on duty. These charges became the subject of the already mentioned public hearing after which they were related in the alleged libel by the Suburban Life Newspapers, Inc.\nSuchomel does not in any way attack or dispute the vast bulk of the article; his claim of libel is based instead upon the headline, subheadline and lead of the story,\n\u201cFor the second time in three months Countryside\u2019s police force was placed into the limelight Wednesday when, after a city council meeting, a resident read a statement reportedly received from an area woman who contended, among other things, that Sgt. George Suchomel had twice within the past year, and while on duty made break-ins in the trailer court which is in the city.\u201d\nWe are of the opinion that the issues raised on this appeal are controlled by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US 254. In that case the Police Commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, sued the New York Times for having printed an advertisement which falsely criticized his official conduct. In holding against the plaintiff, the court said, at p 280, that,\n\u201cThe constitutional guarantees require, we think a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with \u2018actual malice\u2019 \u2014 that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.\u201d\nThe court did not in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, set forth how far down the governmental hierarchy the privilege of comment on official conduct would go. However, in Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 US 75, a case involving the alleged libel of the supervisor of a municipal ski resort, the court, at p 85, stated that,\n\u201cIt is clear, therefore, that the \u2018public official\u2019 designation applies at the very least to those among the hierarchy of government employees who have, or appear to the public to have, substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs.\u201d\nRecently it was held that a patrolman in the employ of the Village of Skokie did not fall within the boundaries of the statement of the court in the Rosenblatt case. Coursey v. Greater Niles Tp. Pub. Co., 82 Ill App2d 76, 227 NE2d 164.\nThe record establishes that the plaintiff in the instant case was a man with \u201csubstantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs.\u201d Plaintiff was not only sergeant of the Countryside police, but was second in command to the chief and in actual command when his superior was off duty. Plaintiff also served as the juvenile officer for the suburb.\nPlaintiff also contends that even if there was a privilege, as we have so found, that that privilege was lost. The burden of proof in establishing actual malice is always upon the plaintiff. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at p 284. Moreover, the Illinois Supreme Court in a subsequent case has declared that in every libel suit in Illinois where actual malice must be shown, the burden of proof, \u201cis always upon the plaintiff.\u201d Lulay v. Peoria Journal-Star, Inc., 34 Ill2d 112, at 115, 214 NE2d 746.\nThe court in Lulay v. Peoria Journal-Star, Inc. supra, at pp 115-116 stated further that,\n\u201cThe privilege to report governmental acts or ut- \u2022 terances can only be defeated by proving that a particular publication was motivated solely by actual malice. (Judge v. Rockford Memorial Hospital, 17 Ill App2d 365; Beyl v. Capper Publications, Inc. 180 Kans 525, 305 P2d 817.) As expressed in the Restatement of Torts, section 611, a publication reporting government proceedings is nonactionable unless published \u2018solely for the purpose of causing harm to the person defamed.\u2019 . . . Although the plaintiff contends that the defendant here was guilty of actual malice, plaintiff did not offer any evidence remotely creating an issue of fact as to whether defendant\u2019s news article was conceived or inspired solely because of a malicious design to injure the plaintiff or his business. The plaintiff had the obligation both upon the motion for summary judgment and at the trial to adduce all of the evidence he believed would satisfy his burden. Harrell v. Summers, 32 Ill App2d 358; Porter v. Miller, 24 Ill App 2d 424; Killian v. Welfare Engineering Co., 328 Ill App 375.\u201d\nIt is manifest both from the record and from a reading of the defendants\u2019 news article that actual malice in this case is patently lacking as a matter of law \u2014 that the plaintiff neither did nor could sustain the burden of proof required to establish actual malice. The article on its face is a typical example of a matter-of-fact news coverage of the official inquiry and public controversy that occurred as a result of the serious charges of official misconduct committed by the plaintiff. The article, in fact, went to great lengths to set forth both sides of the controversy; it specifically reports and quotes plaintiff\u2019s denials of the charges.\nPlaintiff not only failed to offer any proof of actual malice, but he also failed to plead or prove special damages. Since we have found that the defendants\u2019 article is privileged under the holding of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, and is accordingly not libelous, per se, plaintiff was required to plead and prove special damages. Lundstrom v. Winnebago Newspapers, Inc., 58 Ill App2d 33, 206 NE2d 525.\nSection 57, Civil Practice Act provides that summary judgment is proper whenever there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Upon a motion for summary judgment in a libel suit where the plaintiff, as here, had the burden of proving actual malice, it has been held that the plaintiff must \u201cadduce all of the evidence he believed would satisfy his burden.\u201d Lu-lay v. Peoria Journal-Star, Inc., supra, at 116. The court was right in deciding as a matter of law that plaintiff does not have a right of action.\nTherefore the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nLYONS, P. J. and BURKE, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE BRYANT" } ], "attorneys": [ "Anthony F. Mannina and Angelo D. Mistretta, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, of Chicago (Don H. Reuben and Lawrence Gunnels, of counsel), for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "George Suchomel, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suburban Life Newspapers, Inc., and Karl Bell, DefendantsAppellees.\nGen. No. 50,852.\nFirst District, Second Division.\nJune 6, 1967.\nAnthony F. Mannina and Angelo D. Mistretta, of Chicago, for appellant.\nKirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters, of Chicago (Don H. Reuben and Lawrence Gunnels, of counsel), for appellees." }, "file_name": "0239-01", "first_page_order": 245, "last_page_order": 253 }