Opinion ID: 487723
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Allegedly Libelous Statements

Text: 86 Although the central thrust of the story was not proven false at trial, it is still possible that the story contains defamatory falsehoods. Cf. Afro-American Publishing, 366 F.2d at 655 ([T]he defamer may be [all] the more successful when he baits the hook with truth.). But cf. Restatement (Second) Of Torts Sec. 581A comment f, at 237 (Slight inaccuracies of expression are immaterial provided that the defamatory charge is true in substance.). We must, in consequence, carefully consider both the veracity and defamatory character of the three challenged statements in the Post article besides the fundamental set up charge. 34 87 Tavoulareas first seeks to premise liability on statements in the article creating the impression that there was a direct link between Mobil and Atlas. Brief for Appellant at 25. Given the overwhelming proof at trial of precisely such a link, this argument collapses at the outset. To recap briefly, it is undisputed that Mobil recruited Comnas to form Atlas; that Mobil argued--successfully--in favor of Atlas' position with the other Samarco partners on several critical occasions; that Mobil removed Comnas as head of Atlas without consulting its Samarco partners; and that Mobil made a senior Mobil executive available to Atlas as an interim replacement for Comnas. Furthermore, it is beyond cavil that Mobil provided office space and direct financial assistance to Atlas and that Atlas managed the ships that Mobil bareboat chartered to Samarco. See, e.g., Tr. at 1142-48. Thus, even if the Post article failed to make clear the formal, corporate relationship between Mobil, Samarco, and Atlas, but see paragraphs 6, 58-59, 74, the defendants cannot in reason and in law be held liable for accurately reporting the direct link that undisputedly did exist between Mobil and Atlas. 88 Tavoulareas also challenges the allegation at the end of the article that when Comnas left Atlas, Tavoulareas dispatched one of his senior shipping executives, Herman [sic] F. Hoffmann, to London to help run Atlas. p 82. Tavoulareas does not contest the fact that Mobil indeed sent Hoffmann to London on that very mission. Rather, he contends that the Post published a defamatory falsehood by suggesting that he personally ordered a Mobil executive to London to bail out his son's company. Reply Brief for Appellant at 14 (emphasis added). As we have seen, Tavoulareas does not and could not dispute the Post 's allegation that he played a personal role in arranging Comnas' departure from Atlas. Moreover, the article was also undisputedly correct in reporting that Comnas' removal made it  'natural for Mobil to step forward' ... 'to maintain quality management of [Samarco's] operations.'  paragraphs 83-84 (quoting Kousi as well as Mobil's own statement). Nor is it contested, as noted above, that Tavoulareas personally participated in the Mobil discussions in which it was decided that Hoffmann would replace Comnas. Tr. at 1193. Nevertheless, Tavoulareas asserts that the jury could reasonably have found the dispatch allegation to be actionable. 89 Testimony was presented at trial that Paul Wolfe, Tavoulareas' subordinate at Mobil, actually made the decision to dispatch Hoffmann to Atlas. Tr. at 1098, 1440. Thus, viewing as we do the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, the dispatch allegation was false to the extent it overstated Tavoulareas' role in Mobil's sending Hoffmann to replace Comnas. The potentially defamatory inference that could be drawn from this falsehood is that Tavoulareas had not recused himself from Atlas matters despite a possible conflict of interest. But we have already held this implication not to be actionable in light of the overwhelming, undisputed evidence of Tavoulareas' personal, continual, and active involvement in Atlas' matters in ways that uncontestably redounded directly to Peter's benefit. Since the only derogatory implication of the dispatch statement is undisputedly correct, it is not actionable. See, e.g., Herbert v. Lando, 781 F.2d 298, 312 (2d Cir.) (To hold actionable a statement whose ultimate defamatory implications are themselves not actionable, we believe, would be a classic case of the tail wagging the dog.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2916, 91 L.Ed.2d 545 (1986); Skrocki v. Stahl, 14 Cal.App. 1, 6, 110 P. 957 (1910) (It was sufficient if the gist or sting of the libelous charge was justified, and immaterial variances and defects of proof upon minor matters are to be disregarded if the substance of the charge be justified); Restatement (Second) Of Torts Sec. 581A comment f, at 237. 35 90 Third, and finally, plaintiff vigorously contests the article's assertion that he personally urged Comnas to accept Peter as a partner in Atlas. paragraphs 23, 52. The jury reasonably could have concluded that this charge, communicated to Tyler by Comnas, was false. See Tr. at 1293-94, 1296-97, 1425, 1433. And, because the personally urged allegation goes beyond the general charge that Tavoulareas set up his son and suggests that Tavoulareas actively pressured Comnas to hire Peter rather than merely rewarded Comnas for doing Peter a favor, see supra note 17, the jury may reasonably have found that this specific allegation carries with it an independent defamatory implication capable of causing a separate harm to plaintiff's reputation. We thus turn to the issue of actual malice.