Rancher Wins $7 Million in UC Libel Suit

SAN FRANCISCO — A Chico rancher has been awarded $7 million in his libel suit against the University of California and three UC Davis professors for a report that blamed him and absolved the state in the deaths of 500 of his cattle in 1979.

The rancher, George Neary, contended that he was falsely portrayed as responsible for the deaths when, in fact, they were caused by state and federal veterinarians who sprayed the pesticide toxaphene on the cattle.

The verdict, returned late Thursday by an Alameda County Superior Court jury after a four-month trial, was believed by attorneys on both sides to be the first of its kind in California involving an academic report issued publicly by a college or university.

Chancellor Stunned

UC Davis Chancellor Theodore L. Hullar Friday said he was stunned by the verdict and promised an appeal. “The expert opinion requested of our veterinary professors was offered in good faith and after a rigorous and objective study. . . . Their conduct (was) above reproach,” he said in a statement.

John F. Lundberg, the university’s managing general counsel, said that the ruling, unless overturned, “will have a chilling effect on the research and expert opinion we expect of university professors, even in areas of controversy.”

However, an attorney for Neary, John W. Keker of San Francisco, said that despite its unusual nature, the large award was justified by the circumstances.

“What made this so unusual was that a report that had appeared to be objective and scientific on its face would be libelous and was found so by a jury,” Keker said. “The verdict was a damning indictment of the report and the people who wrote it.”

The way had been cleared for the trial in September, 1986, when a state Court of Appeal in San Francisco rejected a claim by the university that it was protected from a libel suit for a report it believed it was required to make public.

UC lawyers noted that several news agencies had sought copies of the report in the widely publicized case and that if the university had not released the document it would have been open to a suit under the state Public Records Act.

But the appellate court said that while officials are generally protected in carrying out policy, the university had not shown that the records act required release of its report “in the public interest” or that the authors of the report were acting in an official policy-making capacity and thus not subject to suit.

Neary had purchased 848 pregnant heifers in Oregon in 1978 and took them to one of two ranches he owns covering 20,000 acres near Chico. Later, state and federal authorities decided to treat the cattle with toxaphene because they feared that the herd had been infested with scabies mites.

Animals Die

The next year, after the deaths of 95 heifers and more than 400 calves, state officials arranged to have Neary request an investigation by veterinarians from UC Davis, according to Neary.

Three veterinarians--Richard McCapes, Charles Hjerpe and Ben Norman--concluded that the deaths were caused by inadequate feeding and care and not by the spraying of toxaphene. The report found that only one cow had been poisoned by the pesticide, which at the time was the only treatment prescribed by the federal government for combating the infestation, according to the university.

Over Neary’s objection, the report was released by the university and widely quoted in California newspapers.

Release Damaged Reputation

The rancher sued the university and the three veterinarians, saying that the report should have remained confidential and that its public release damaged his reputation. His lawyers contended that the authors made false statements to protect the university’s relationship with government veterinarians and the chemical and beef industries.

At trial, Neary, as a “public figure,” was required to meet the difficult burden of proving to the jury that the report was false and that it was made with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

The jury’s award of $7 million in general damages for Neary’s loss of reputation and emotional distress will be subject to several legal attacks, according to Donna M. Veneruso of San Francisco, one of the attorneys representing the university at trial.

Superior Court Judge Raymond L. Marsh will be asked to grant a new trial or reduce the damage award and, if that fails, the case will be taken to the state Court of Appeal, Veneruso said.

“The evidence was virtually incontrovertible that the pesticide had nothing to do with the deaths,” she said. “But the problem was, an urban jury was making the decision . . . and urban juries tend to blame chemicals when things happen.”

Neary’s long legal battle over the incident is proceeding on other fronts as well. The cattleman has brought suit in federal court in Fresno against the veterinarians who administered the spray--and those veterinarians have sued Neary and CBS News in Tehema County Superior Court, charging libel for statements that Neary made on the program “60 Minutes.”