## Facts

- The *National Enquirer* published a short gossip item stating that Carol Burnett loudly argued with Henry Kissinger in a Washington restaurant, acted “boisterous,” and knocked over wine while “giggling,” prompting another diner to spill water on her.
- Burnett, a prominent entertainer and public figure, alleged the item was false and defamatory, asserting it implied intoxication and improper conduct inconsistent with her public stance against alcoholism.
- Burnett demanded a correction or retraction under California Civil Code § 48a.
- The *Enquirer* later published a retraction stating the events did not occur and expressing regret for any embarrassment.
- Burnett sued for libel; the jury awarded $300,000 compensatory and $1.3 million punitive damages.
- The trial court reduced the award by remittitur to $50,000 compensatory and $750,000 punitive, and entered judgment.
- The *Enquirer* appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the *National Enquirer* qualified as a “newspaper” under California Civil Code § 48a, such that a timely retraction would limit Burnett’s recovery to special damages.
2. Whether the publication was libelous on its face, permitting general damages without proof of special damages, and whether the compensatory award was excessive.
3. Whether punitive damages were properly available and supported by the correct malice standard, and whether the amount was excessive.

## Decision

- The court affirmed liability for libel and upheld the $50,000 compensatory damages award.
- The court held the *National Enquirer* was not a “newspaper” for purposes of California Civil Code § 48a and therefore could not invoke the statute’s damages limitation based on retraction.
- The court held the item was libelous per se because it conveyed an implication of “objectionable” inebriation and misconduct.
- The court held punitive damages were permissible under California’s punitive-damages malice standard, distinct from constitutional “actual malice” required for public-figure defamation liability.
- The court found the $750,000 punitive award excessive and ordered a reduction to $150,000 unless Burnett accepted the remittitur; otherwise, a new trial would be limited to punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- California Civil Code § 48a’s damages limitation for retracted defamation applies to publications engaged in the immediate dissemination of news; a gossip/feature tabloid with substantial lead time and little timely news coverage may fall outside the statute.
- A statement is libelous per se when its defamatory meaning is apparent on its face; in such cases, general damages for reputational harm may be awarded without proof of special damages.
- For a public figure to recover for defamation, constitutional “actual malice” (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) must be proven by clear and convincing evidence to establish liability.
- Punitive damages in California require “malice in fact” under Civil Code § 3294 and may be determined under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard; this state-law malice is analytically distinct from constitutional “actual malice.”
- Punitive damages must be proportionate to punishment and deterrence objectives; an award may be reduced when the amount is excessive relative to the defendant’s financial condition and the compensatory damages awarded.

## Conclusion

The court held the tabloid could not limit damages through California’s retraction statute, sustained the finding of libel per se and compensatory damages, and permitted punitive damages under a state-law malice standard, but required a substantial reduction of the punitive award as excessive.


Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc., 144 Cal. App. 3d 991 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)