Warren Yeakey believes the truth can lie.

The former Tacoma resident is fighting a Goliath – The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and its corporate parent, Hearst Communications Inc. The legal battle is far from over, and Yeakey is surviving despite long odds.

His lawsuit in Pierce County Superior Court, filed in November 2008, hinges on an uncommon concept in law: defamation by implication.

Yeakey and his attorney, Matt Renda, contend he was defamed by the newspaper’s Nov. 18, 2006, front-page story package about a construction crane accident that killed a Bellevue man, though facts cited in the accompanying articles were true.

“You can put words on a page where two and two don’t add up to the right number, depending on the context,” Renda said.

Lawyers for Hearst are leaning on the First Amendment, arguing that truth is their best defense. The story at the heart of the debate contains no falsehoods or significant omissions. Both sides agree on that point, according to court filings.

Jonathan Donnellan, one of the attorneys representing Hearst, declined to discuss the case in detail, but said Yeakey’s suit could set a dangerous precedent.

“It should concern every publisher in Washington,” Donnellan said. “The notion that one can impose liability for perfectly accurate speech runs headlong into the First Amendment.”

The P-I’s stories examined the Nov. 16, 2006, collapse of the construction crane in downtown Bellevue. Yeakey was operating the crane that day. Bellevue resident Matthew Ammon died when part of the crane crashed into his home.

The key story, headlined “Operator in crane wreck has a history of drug abuse,” detailed Yeakey’s criminal past and drug-related convictions, the last of them coming in 2000, six years before the crane collapse.

Later investigation by the state Department of Labor and Industries found that “flawed engineering design” caused the crash and Yeakey bore no blame for it. He had passed a drug test and operated the crane properly, the agency found, noting, “Operator error was not a factor.”

The lawsuit argues that the P-I’s story package – layout, photographs and headlines, along with articles – created the false impression that Yeakey might have been responsible for the crash and the resulting death.

That’s where the idea of defamation by implication enters the arena. Renda pins his argument on a 2005 ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court. The decision cited language from a standard legal textbook:

“Defamation by implication occurs where ‘the defendant juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them,’” the 2005 ruling states.

The statement prompted Renda to take a case that pits him against some of the best media lawyers in the business. He admits the task is steep; even if he wins in local court, chances are the case would climb through multiple levels of appeal.

Hearst’s lawyers have assailed Renda’s position with gusto. They argue, accurately, that no court decisions in Washington have been decided on the point that Renda argues.

“Yeakey bases his entire lawsuit on one sentence ... that mentions defamation by juxtaposition as part of a treatise,” they wrote in a recent filing.

Renda represented Yeakey during his earlier legal troubles. When the P-I story appeared, Yeakey asked his old attorney for help. At first, Renda was doubtful.

“In the course of researching, there were a number of times where I flipped back and forth in my own mind,” he said. “The more I researched, the more feedback I heard from colleagues and nonlawyers, reading the article.

“The overwhelming response was that this guy got a terribly raw deal. He got shafted in that article. That really was sort of the tipping point, where I said there is a plausible legal argument here.”

So far, the early scorecard of pretrial motions and rulings favors Yeakey. Hearst’s lawyers moved for dismissal of the suit in February. Judge John McCarthy denied the motion.

Hearst took another swing in April, again seeking a dismissal. Again, McCarthy denied it.

Hearst sought higher authority and requested a review by Division II of the state Court of Appeals. The two sides presented their arguments Wednesday.

It was a short session – 10 minutes a side, with no judges present. Review by the higher court is not automatic. A court commissioner listens to competing arguments, then decides (in writing) whether to refer the case to the judges or send it back to the lower court.

Such hearings rarely draw crowds, but the nature of the case – a classical legal debate – represents “quite a sexy area of defamation law,” Renda said. An array of spectators filed into the chamber.

“At the morning hearing, the whole back row was filled with all the court clerks,” Renda said. “All the kids that have internships.”

There is no timeline for the commissioner’s decision. Rejection would send the case back to Pierce County and start a new string of arguments. Acceptance would put the question to appeals court judges, who still hold the option of sending the case back to Pierce County.

The other potential outcome – reversing the lower court’s ruling – could spell the end of Yeakey’s suit.

“Both sides have very salient points,” Renda said. “Very valid intellectual arguments on both sides.”

Sean Robinson: 253-597-8486

sean.robinson@thenewstribune.com