Brief Fact Summary. Paramount Pictures Corp. (Defendant) produced a movie, which, according to Robert Muzikowski (Plaintiff), portrayed him in an unflattering and false manner. Plaintiff sued Defendant for defamation.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. If a statement is capable of two reasonable constructions, one defamatory and one innocent, the innocent one will prevail.
For a statement to be defamation per se, it must fall into one of five categories: (1) statements imputing the commission of a crime; (2) statements imputing infection with a loathsome communicable disease; (3) statements imputing an inability to perform or want of integrity in performing employment duties; (4) statements imputing a lack of ability or that otherwise prejudice a person in his or her profession or business; and (5) statements imputing adultery or fornication.View Full Point of Law
Issue. If a statement is capable of two reasonable constructions, one defamatory and one innocent, will the innocent one will prevail?
Held. Yes. Judgment reversed.
* A defamatory statement is one that “tends to cause such harm to the reputation of another that it lowers that person in the eyes of the community or deters third persons from associating with him.” A defamation action may state a claim either for defamation per se (statements so harmful to reputation that damages are presumed) or defamation per quod (statements requiring extrinsic facts to show their defamatory meaning).
* In a per se action, Plaintiff may recover only if Defendant’s statements fit into one of the four limited categories: (1) commission of a criminal offense; (2) infection with a venereal disease; (3) inability to perform or want of integrity in the discharge of duties of public office; (4) fornication or adultery; or (5) words that prejudice a party in her trade, profession, or business.
* If a statement is capable of two reasonable constructions, one defamatory and one innocent, the innocent one will prevail. Thus, if the statement may reasonably be innocently interpreted or reasonably be interpreted as referring to someone other than Plaintiff there can be no per se action.
* In this case, the court held that summary judgment was not appropriate. Plaintiff might be able to produce evidence showing that there is in fact no reasonable interpretation of the movie that would support an innocent construction.
* Because Plaintiff did not specifically state his damages, we affirm the judgment for Defendant on the per quod claim.
Discussion. In this case, the district court erred in granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff should be allowed to present evidence to a jury that no person could reasonably have thought that O’Neil was portrayed as someone other than Plaintiff.