Dangerfield Defamed by Tabloid, Judge Rules : Libel: But comedian who sought $4 million from the Star is awarded just $45,002. His lawyer vows to appeal.

Rodney Dangerfield finally got a smidgen of respect--but he’s still pleading for more.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the 74-year-old comedian was defamed in a Star tabloid article describing him as a hard-drinking, drug-using party animal. U.S. District Judge Robert S.W. Lew characterized the Star’s story as libelous and awarded Dangerfield $45,002 in damages.

However, Lew found that the article, headlined “Rodney Dangerfield ‘Swills Vodka by the Tumblerful, Smokes Pot All Day and Uses Cocaine,’ ” did not inflict serious emotional distress, and did not significantly tatter the comedian’s reputation.

Even before the article was published, Lew said, Dangerfield’s reputation was “considerably less wholesome than the California Dancing Raisins.”

Further explaining why the award was far less than the $4 million sought at trial, Lew said that Star Editorial has no real assets.

The tabloid’s parent company, American Media Operations, controls all advertising and subscription revenue. Star Editorial consists solely of reporters, editors and support staff--and although they put together a paper with a weekly circulation of 2.4 million, they do not have the resources to make punitive damage payments, Lew ruled.

Shaking his head in disbelief, Dangerfield’s attorney, Barry Langberg, immediately vowed to appeal. A veteran libel lawyer who has been dubbed a “tabloid buster,” Langberg argued that the Star’s asset-rich parent company should be held responsible for the reckless actions of the paper’s editorial staff.

“It was a ridiculous ruling,” Langberg said. “It’s illogical.”

With his expressive face and hangdog eyes, Dangerfield has long sought to project an image as a put-upon, stepped-on loser who never gets respect. The Star story, purportedly gleaned from interviews with employees at the Caesars Palace hotel/casino in Las Vegas, portrayed the comedian in a far less sympathetic light.

One female casino worker was quoted as saying that Dangerfield had chased her around his hotel room brandishing a pair of ice tongs and shouting “babble” about ripping off her clothes. Another characterized the comedian as having been “blotto” when he once stood dumbfounded with an entourage of naked women in a flooded hotel room after trashing a marble shower.

The Star’s attorney, Vincent Cox, admitted in court that the ice-tong incident was fabricated. But he maintained that the article was “substantially true,” if not factually accurate, because it reflected the general tenor of Dangerfield’s behavior during a 1988 visit to Las Vegas.

Cox also offered depositions from former call girls who testified that Dangerfield, the star of the movies “Caddyshack” and “Easy Money,” had hired prostitutes and used cocaine.

Furthermore, Cox argued, the Star piece was just one of many unflattering profiles of the comedian that emerged during September, 1990. At that time, Dangerfield and Caesars Palace were involved in a legal battle, with casino executives accusing the comedian of breaching a performance contract, in part because of his alleged drug problems.

With so much negative publicity swirling about the comedian, Cox said, the Star piece could not be held responsible for sullying Dangerfield’s reputation.

Lew agreed--despite his conclusion that the Star article was false, reckless and defamatory.

Langberg said he will press for a hefty punitive damage award from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in an effort to warn tabloid staffers that fabricating anecdotes is dangerous.

“Tabloids have traditionally regarded libel cases as a cost of doing business,” Langberg said. “They just budget it in, as they do rent and telephone bills. If something happens to make them stop writing off (libel suits) as a cost of business, maybe they’ll change” their editorial standards.

Even without a steep bill for punitive damages, however, Cox said the Star will “redouble . . . efforts to (produce) good articles that entertain our readers. We’re not interested in publishing anything false.”

Cox insisted that the Dangerfield article was “anomalous,” and not up to the Star’s usual standards of accuracy.

“We have extensive pre-publication review, but this one somehow got under the radar,” Cox said. “Mistakes were made.”