Kilian v. Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951 · Torts

367 Pa. 117 (1951)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsLibelTruth as justificationdefamationtruth defensejustificationsubstantial truthspecific charge

Facts

Defendant published a book containing an article by O'Connell that described, in first-person factual style, alleged abuses at the Lichfield camp and portrayed Colonel Kilian, the camp commander, as a cruel and knowing participant or indifferent overseer of such conduct. Although the article purported to recount events O'Connell personally saw and experienced, O'Connell admitted at trial that he had never been at Lichfield and had never seen Kilian or known his name when he wrote the piece. Defendant attempted to justify the publication by presenting testimony from three soldiers who had been at Lichfield, but their accounts did not match the specific incidents narrated in the article. A footnote added by the editor also referred to Kilian's military conviction, but the opinion explains that he had been acquitted of authorizing, aiding, abetting, and knowingly permitting cruelty, and was found guilty only of permitting certain punishments through neglect.

Issue

Was there sufficient evidence to submit to the jury defendant's plea of justification that the publication was a true and accurate account of events observed by the author? More specifically, can a defendant justify a libel describing specific firsthand events by proving only different incidents of similar misconduct at the same place?

Rule

To support a defense of truth in libel, the defendant need prove only substantial truth, not exact truth in every detail. But where the publication makes specific charges of particular misconduct, justification must be as broad as the charge: proof of different incidents of similar misconduct does not establish truth, especially where the publication falsely claims the author personally observed the events described.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A magazine in Chicago publishes an article stating that its reporter personally watched Deputy Warden Nora Pike order an inmate tied to a fence overnight during a January snowstorm. In Nora's libel suit, the publisher proves only that at the same jail, months earlier, a different officer forced inmates to stand outside in freezing weather without coats.

Should the court allow the publisher's truth defense to go to the jury on this record?

Explanation. The governing rule is that substantial truth may suffice, but a defendant cannot justify a specific defamatory accusation by proving other misconduct of a similar character. The publication here made a concrete charge that the reporter personally witnessed Nora order a particular punishment. Evidence of a different abusive act by a different officer does not match the charge as broad as made and therefore should not support justification.