Help is needed on this case

Sky v. Van Der Westhuizen

Background and Facts

Anastasia Sky, a psychotherapist, is a cat breeder and the owner of Skyhaven Birman Cattery. Sky exhibits her cats at showswinning many awardsand sells her cats to other breeders. Her cats and cattery are registered with the Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) in Ohio. E-mail messages purporting to be from Sky's employees and customers were sent to the CFA, alleging, among other things, that her cats were kept in deplorable conditions and treated cruelly and inhumanely. Reviews were posted online stating that Sky was "a crazy cat lady" whose medical license had been revoked due to drug abuse. The e-mail and posts were false.

Sky filed a suit in an Ohio state court, alleging defamation and emotional distress. A response to a subpoena identified the author of the e-mails and the online reviews as Hilde Van Der Westhuizen, a competing breeder. The court entered a judgment in Sky's favor and awarded her damages for the harm to her reputation, loss of income, and emotional distress. Van Der Westhuizen appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the award.

In the Words of the Court

WISE, J. [Judge]

* * * *

* * * Dr. Sky testified that after the defamatory emails were sent by [Van Der Westhuizen] Dr. Sky was shunned in the breeding community and her cats failed to place at cat shows. She also suffered damages in the form of lost revenue due to a decrease in sales of kittens. Additionally, she is no longer asked for interviews as a Birman cat expert.

Dr. Sky also testified that * * * she lost patients as a result of the damaging reviews [posted online]. Additionally, she received fewer physician referrals.

Evidence was also presented to support * * * damages on her claims for emotional distress * * * . Testimony was presented * * * regarding the changes she underwent following the defamation such as changes in her appearance, her mood and her mental/emotional state. Evidence was also presented that Dr. Sky sought therapy for her emotional distress. [Emphasis added.]

* * * *

In support of her claim for financial losses resulting from damage to her reputation, Dr. Sky testified that * * * the sale of kittens was down from 68 kittens sold [before the defamatory e-mails] to 27 kittens sold [after the e-mails].

Dr. Sky further testified that she lost income in her medical practice as a result of damage to her reputation as a doctor. She testified that * * * she lost income in the amount of $12,765, lost future earning capacity in the amount of $26,178.98 * * *, and lost ten patients.

In support of her claim for damages for emotional distress, Dr. Sky testified as to her personal humiliation and mental suffering in regard to having to respond to the defamatory e-mails, having to undergo inspections of her cattery, being shunned by judges at cat shows, and no longer being pursued for publications. She also testified that her hair fell out, she lost sleep, and had to seek therapy.

ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WITH EXPLAINATION

Who are the parties in this case?

What went wrong - why are they in court?

What court is the opinion from - is it a trial court or appellate court?

What question did the court have to decide in this case?

What facts did the court focus on in deciding the case?