## Facts

- The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published an article about a family dispute over the legitimacy of a deceased man’s will.
- The story attributed allegations to Paul Ciaffoni, an interested participant in the will dispute, who accused attorney and district justice Richard DiSalle of wrongdoing connected to the will and Ciaffoni’s sister, Elizabeth Cowden.
- A reporter drafted the article largely from Ciaffoni’s account; the city editor directed that the story include a motive for DiSalle’s involvement.
- The article added material from deposition testimony to imply DiSalle had a romantic relationship with Cowden, suggesting this was the motive for his participation and implying unethical conduct.
- DiSalle and his wife sued the publisher for libel, alleging the implication of an affair and wrongdoing was false and damaged his reputation as an attorney and judicial officer.
- A jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding about $210,000 in compensatory damages and $2,000,000 in punitive damages.
- The trial court denied the publisher’s post-trial motions and entered judgment on the verdict; the publisher appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit punitive damages to the jury in a defamation action brought by a public official, including whether the record supported findings of constitutional actual malice and Pennsylvania common-law malice.
2. Whether the $2,000,000 punitive-damages award was excessive under Pennsylvania law, requiring remittitur or a new trial on punitive damages.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the judgment as to liability and compensatory damages.
- The court held the evidence permitted a jury to find constitutional actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth) and Pennsylvania common-law malice, making punitive damages available in principle.
- The court held the $2,000,000 punitive award was excessive and ordered a remittitur; if the plaintiffs did not accept the reduced amount, a new trial would be required on punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- A public official plaintiff must prove constitutional “actual malice” by clear and convincing evidence to recover punitive damages in a defamation action.
- Under Pennsylvania law, punitive damages additionally require proof of common-law malice (evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others).
- A jury may find reckless disregard for truth where a publisher relies substantially on a single interested source, fails to investigate readily available contrary information, and adds defamatory insinuations to supply a motive without adequate support.
- Punitive damages must bear a reasonable relationship to compensatory damages and the defendant’s conduct; an award grossly disproportionate to the compensatory recovery may be reduced by remittitur or retried.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the defamation verdict and the legal availability of punitive damages because the evidence supported findings of both actual malice and common-law malice, but it required a substantial reduction of the punitive award as excessive under Pennsylvania proportionality standards.


DiSalle v. P.G. Publ'g Co., 544 A.2d 1345 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)