## Facts

- John Henry Faulk was a nationally known radio and television performer with strong prospects for continued work and increasing income.
- Aware, Inc., an organization focused on identifying alleged communist influence in entertainment, circulated statements accusing Faulk of “communist sympathies and affiliations.”
- Faulk alleged the statements were false and part of a coordinated effort by Aware and its officers to blacklist him within the broadcasting industry.
- After the publications, Faulk’s employment opportunities in radio and television sharply decreased, and he claimed he was effectively rendered unemployable in that field.
- At trial, Faulk presented expert testimony from industry professionals familiar with his career and abilities that he could reasonably have earned approximately $150,000 to $500,000 per year going forward.
- Defendants did not present evidence contradicting the experts’ projections of Faulk’s earning potential.
- A jury found for Faulk on libel and conspiracy claims and awarded $1,000,000 in compensatory damages against all defendants and $1,250,000 in punitive damages against Aware and Hartnett.
- Defendants moved post-verdict to set aside or reduce the awards as excessive and unsupported by the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the $1,000,000 compensatory award for libel, including loss of future earning capacity, lacked a rational basis in the evidence and had to be set aside or reduced.
2. Whether the $1,250,000 punitive award was excessive or otherwise improper on the record.
3. Whether expert opinion testimony projecting future earnings was admissible and sufficient support for a substantial compensatory award in a libel action.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to set aside or reduce the verdict.
- The court held there was a rational basis in the trial record for both the compensatory and punitive awards.
- The court declined to substitute its judgment for the jury’s on damages because the awards were not insupportable under any fair-minded view of the facts.
- The court accepted the expert testimony on future earning capacity as proper evidence supporting the compensatory award.
- The court upheld the punitive award as supported by evidence of deliberate, harmful conduct warranting punishment and deterrence.

## Legal Principles

- A court should not disturb a jury’s damages award unless it is unsupportable under any fair-minded view of the evidence.
- In libel actions, compensatory damages may include deprivation of future earning capacity, and recovery is not limited to the plaintiff’s historical earnings before the defamation.
- Expert testimony from qualified industry witnesses familiar with a plaintiff’s abilities and career trajectory may be admitted to prove prospective earning capacity.
- Substantial punitive damages may be imposed in defamation where the evidence supports malicious or egregious conduct, and will be upheld if the award is grounded in the record and not so disproportionate as to require judicial intervention.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a large libel verdict because the jury had a rational evidentiary basis—particularly uncontradicted expert proof of future earning capacity and evidence of career-damaging, malicious conduct—and the awards were not so excessive as to justify substituting judicial judgment for the jury’s determination.


Faulk v. Aware, Inc., 231 N.Y.S.2d 270 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1962)