## Facts

- A publisher released a book of writings by disabled World War II veterans, marketed as first-hand accounts.
- One contribution, written in the first person, described an army prison camp in England and depicted its commanding officer, Colonel James A. Kilian, as brutal and corrupt, alleging specific acts of cruelty and unauthorized punishment.
- The author later admitted he had never been at the camp and did not witness the events; the account was based on what he had heard from others.
- The editor added a footnote stating that Kilian had been convicted of permitting cruel and unusual punishment and had received a reprimand and small fine.
- Kilian had been acquitted of knowingly permitting cruel and unusual punishment and convicted only of negligent permitting, with a reprimand and fine.
- Kilian sued the publisher for libel; the publisher pleaded truth, asserting the account was a true and accurate description of events observed by the author.

## Issues

1. In a libel action charging specific misconduct, may a defendant support a truth defense with proof of other similar misconduct or general bad character rather than proof of the particular acts alleged?
2. Where there is no evidence capable of proving the truth of the specific defamatory charges, is it reversible error to submit to the jury whether the publication was “substantially true”?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the defense verdict and awarded a new trial.
- The court held that, for defamation alleging specific misconduct, a truth defense requires proof that the plaintiff committed the particular misconduct charged.
- The court held it was reversible error to submit “substantial truth” to the jury when the evidence could not establish the truth of the specific defamatory statements.

## Legal Principles

- Truth is a complete defense to defamation only if the defendant proves the truth of the defamatory imputation at issue.
- When the publication charges specific misconduct, the defendant may not justify it by showing other misconduct of a similar character or by showing general bad character.
- “Substantial truth” does not permit substituting proof of different wrongdoing for proof of the particular acts alleged.
- If there is no evidence from which a jury could find the defamatory statements true, the court should not submit the truth issue to the jury; doing so constitutes reversible error.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the publisher’s evidence did not prove the specific acts of cruelty and eyewitness implications asserted in the publication, and a truth defense in a case alleging specific misconduct requires proof of the particular misconduct charged rather than proof of other bad acts or generally harsh conditions.


Kilian v. Doubleday & Co., 79 A.2d 657 (Pa. 1951)