Replies

“The theory of the complaint is that defendant negligently published false and misleading statements. New York has long recognized such a cause of action. Liability exists “only where there is a duty, if one speaks at all, to give the correct information.” (International Prods. Co. v Erie R. R. Co., 244 NY 331, 338 [1927]; see, Ultramares Corp. v Touche, 255 NY 170, 180-185 [1931] [an accountant may be liable for a negligent audit opinion but only to a circumscribed class of potential plaintiffs].) In addition to knowledge of the possibility of detrimental reliance, “the relationship of the parties . . . must be such that in morals and good conscience the one has the right to rely upon the other for information, and the other giving the information owes a duty to give it with care.” (International Prods. Co. v Erie R. R. Co., supra, at 338.) The cause of action has been severely limited over the years to avoid impinging on basic rights. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 (2) also supports limiting the class of plaintiffs who may sue for negligent misstatements; liability “is limited to loss suffered [a] by the person or one of a limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance” the speaker acts (emphasis added). That is, as a matter of public policy, the class of potential plaintiffs must be carefully circumscribed to avoid the potential of unlimited liability.”

http://www.dogpile.com/search/web?fcoid=417&fcop=topnav&fpid=27&q=duty+to+be+accurate+news+legal&ql=

When applied against news in particular, this could bring suit in little used areas of federal and state code to reinforce the press’ responsibility to uphold 1A issues as an ethic. The press ‘should have known’ what it/they were doing. If they acted on advice or words of the POTUS ‘secretary,’ or of others, that man in Toledo could band together with any number of others to suit for remedy and relief.

Sounds like a pre-paid legal movement to me.