MOUNT VERNON — A recent court ruling forced a Virginia man to an Ohio courtroom to defend himself in a lawsuit over comments he posted on the Internet.
If upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio 5th District court ruling means that anyone can be sued in Knox County for defamation, no matter where the offending party lives in America.
For example, if a party in California were to post defamatory remarks on a Web site about a Knox County resident, that Knox County resident could file a local law suit and the person in California would be forced to respond or face a default judgment in the case.
In the case of Kauffman Racing Equipment versus Scott Roberts, the court ruled that even though Roberts lives in Virginia, he could be sued in Knox County over allegedly defamatory remarks he posted online.
An attorney for Kauffman Racing, Brett Jaffe of Columbus, said that “people need to be held accountable for their actions. People cannot continue to use the Internet as an instrument to basically vent without consequence for their actions.”
The appeals court voted 2-1 in its ruling. Writing for the majority, Judge William Hoffman said, “A non-resident defendant who avails himself of the expansive reach of the Internet should not be able to use his non-residency as a shield against defending tortious activity against a plaintiff harmed in a different state.”
Domingo Rivera, an Internet defamation lawyer in Virginia, explained.
“If somebody commits a crime like assault in another state and then goes home, they can expect that they will be tried in the state where they committed the offense,” he said. “Similarly, if a person did direct something against a person in another state they should expect that they will have to respond there as well.”
Mount Vernon attorney William Kepko, representing Roberts in the case, disagreed.
“You could be a buyer on eBay and your seller could be in Texas and you could receive a product that wasn’t what you thought it would be. Now if you go on eBay and talk about it you could end up in a Texas courtroom,” he said.
“I think [the issue] needs to be thought about and considered carefully before it stands the way it is,” said Kepko. “The public should know it could subject you to lawsuits all over the country. If all states started being like the 5th District, then Ohioans could be hauled into other states.”
Should a party be sued from another state and fail to respond to the case or fails to appear in court, a default judgment could be granted. According to Rivera, if, for example, an Ohio resident failed to appear in California for a lawsuit, the court could end up seizing the Ohio resident’s home in lieu of payment.
In a dissenting opinion, Appellate Judge Patricia Delaney said that “the cause of action [in this case] arose from Roberts posting allegedly defamatory comments on Internet bulletin boards, which are an increasingly popular forum of communications. ... These ‘customer satisfaction forums’ exist so people can post comments ... These bulletin boards are the electronic equivalent of a response card. They are targeted based upon a shared interest in a particular topic, rather than based on a geographic location.”
Delaney cited a previous Supreme Court case and said, “that mere operation of a commercially interactive Web site does not subject the operator to jurisdiction anywhere in the world.”
According to Delaney, the majority’s decision “subjects online communicators to be subject to suit in any state for which the Web site content is accessible and without evidence of express aiming or intentional targeting.”
Kepko agreed, and stated that his client intended to appeal the case to the State Supreme Court.
“Theoretically, [this ruling says] every state can sue you. It’s probably a pristine case for the Supreme Court to take up,” he said.
For now, the case is awaiting scheduling and no pending dates have been set.
