## Facts

- Jones Street Publishers, LLC published a front-page article in the *Charleston City Paper* questioning alleged misconduct and objectivity problems in South Carolina’s guardian ad litem (GAL) system.
- The article recounted a specific custody-and-abuse dispute involving a grandmother (Pat Beal), her daughter, and grandchildren, and described alleged failures by the case’s GAL.
- The article did not name the GAL, but the parties did not seriously dispute that Linda Erickson—a privately retained GAL and counselor—was identifiable to readers familiar with the case.
- Erickson alleged the article conveyed false and defamatory implications about her professional conduct (including unprofessionalism and compromised ethics), harming her reputation and livelihood.
- Erickson sued the publisher for defamation, invasion of privacy, and negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether Erickson was a limited-purpose public figure in the public controversy over GAL reform, requiring proof of constitutional “actual malice” to recover for defamation.
2. Whether the trial court erred by setting aside the jury’s liability verdict and granting a directed verdict for the newspaper based on the public-figure determination.
3. How the reinstated defamation liability verdict affected remaining claims (invasion of privacy and negligence) and further proceedings after bifurcation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina held Erickson was a private figure, not a limited-purpose public figure, because she did not voluntarily inject herself into the public controversy or seek to influence its outcome.
- The court reversed the directed verdict for the newspaper and reinstated the jury’s defamation liability verdict.
- The case was remanded for a new trial on damages.
- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part on non-defamation rulings and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion and the reinstated liability determination.

## Legal Principles

- A person becomes a limited-purpose public figure only if she voluntarily thrusts herself into a public controversy and attempts to influence its resolution; mere involvement in work later discussed publicly is insufficient.
- For private-figure defamation, the governing fault standard is negligence rather than the constitutional actual-malice requirement.
- Defamation may be established even when the plaintiff is unnamed if the publication is “of and concerning” the plaintiff by implication and recognizable to the relevant audience.
- Questions such as identification, falsity/defamatory meaning by implication, and credibility are generally for the jury; a trial court should not nullify a properly returned liability verdict based on an incorrect public-figure analysis.

## Conclusion

The court treated the GAL as a private figure, reinstated the jury’s defamation liability verdict after rejecting the trial court’s limited-purpose public-figure ruling, and remanded for a new damages trial and related proceedings consistent with that liability determination.


Erickson v. Jones Street Publishers, LLC, 629 S.E.2d 653 (S.C. 2006)