On 2 March 1976 the National Enquirer ran an item saying Carol Burnett had been boisterous in a Washington restaurant, argued with Henry Kissinger, offered other diners bites of her dessert and giggled after spilling wine on someone. The events did not occur and the paper printed a retraction on 6 April 1976, which Burnett called 'a bouquet of crabgrass'. She sued for libel and on 26 March 1981 a Los Angeles jury awarded her $1.6 million ($300,000 compensatory and $1.3 million punitive). The trial court remitted this to $800,000 and, in Burnett v. National Enquirer, 144 Cal.App.3d 991 (1983), the Court of Appeal affirmed $50,000 compensatory and reduced punitive damages to $150,000. The decisive holding was that the Enquirer was not a 'newspaper' under California's retraction statute, so the printed retraction did not limit her damages. The case settled in December 1984 for an undisclosed sum. Burnett, whose parents were both alcoholics, said she brought the case because the item implied she was drunk, and directed proceeds to charity, including a $100,000 gift endowing a fund at the University of California, Berkeley's journalism school.
— The paper printed a retraction within weeks. She called it a bouquet of crabgrass and sued anyway.
— She said she did it because both her parents had been alcoholics and the item implied she was drunk.
— The jury awarded $1.6 million in 1981. The trial judge cut it to $800,000 and the Court of Appeal cut it again to $200,000.
— The court held the tabloid was not a newspaper for the purposes of the retraction statute, which is why the case is still taught.
— Initials: C.B.
ALLEGEDLY* edition No. 92. Three strikes to name Carol Burnett, with a free clue unlocked after every miss.
Every closed case from the Television desk →