GOVT 280
Activity: Defamation and Related Torts Assignment
By: Annika E. Waters
Liberty University, Pre-Law Undergraduate Program
GOVT280: Undergraduate Torts (B02)
Professor Kristin Kilgore
September 26th, 2024
GOVT 280
60 Minutes, the CBS news program, aired a story regarding a report published by the
National Resources Defense Council, which outlined the detrimental effects of pesticide use by
farmers. 60 Minutes reported on the effects of the herbicide Alar, which is used by the apple
growers to stimulate growth and enhance apple appearance. As a result, consumers boycotted
apples and apple products. The question regarding this case is did the apple growers have a
viable cause of action against CBS and the Natural Resources Defense Council? (Edwards 2016).
Defamation can be defined as a “statement that tends to harm the reputation of another,
encompassing both libel and slander” (Edwards 2016). There are certain elements that need to
occur in order for it to qualify as Defamation. These elements include “(a) Plaintiff’s reputation
is harmed or tendered to be harmed; (b) statement is reasonably interpreted by at least one person
as referring to plaintiff; (c) at least one interpretation of statement could reasonably be
considered defamatory; (d) statement is false; (e) statement is seen or heard by someone other
than plaintiff (publication); and (f) defendant acts with actual malice (if plaintiff is public official
or public figure)” (Edwards 2016). Working in a law firm, and handling defamation cases
personally, Defamation is difficult to prove and uphold according to the above elements. There is
a lot of evidence required in Defamation cases, along with depositions and discovery.
In Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes, Grady and Lillie Auvil sued 60 Minutes on behalf of
themselves and other Washington State apple growers, claiming the 60 Minutes segment that
aired claiming there was a chemical sprayed on their apples was Defamation to the Washington
State apple growers. Ultimately, “the district court denied the growers’ motions but granted
summary judgment to CBS because the growers did not produce evidence sufficient to create a
triable issue of fact as to the falsity of the broadcast” (Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes, 67 F.3d 816 (9th
Cir. 1995)). The district court “held that the growers failed to prove the falsity of the message
GOVT 280
conveyed by the “60 Minutes” broadcast of “A is for Apple,” which concerned the use of Alar, a
chemical sprayed on apples” (Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes, 67 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 1995)). Based on
the legal precedent, the Washington State apple growers did not have a viable cause to use CBS
because there was a lack of evidence to prove that the statements issued in 60 Minutes were
defamatory or false.
