Opinion ID: 2620446
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: rhetorical hyperbole

Text: Dr. Smith and Carilion assert in assignments of crosserror that Dr. Smith’s statements accusing Dr. Cashion of committing euthanasia constitute nothing more than rhetorical hyperbole and therefore are not actionable. We disagree. Under Virginia law, rhetorical hyperbole is not defamatory. Yeagle v. Collegiate Times, 255 Va. 293, 295-96, 497 S.E.2d 136, 137 (1998). Statements characterized as rhetorical hyperbole are those from which “no reasonable inference could be drawn that the individual identified in the statements, as a matter of fact, engaged in the conduct described.” Id. at 296, 497 S.E.2d at 137. Whether a 15 statement constitutes rhetorical hyperbole is a question of law for the court to determine. Id. at 296, 497 S.E.2d at 138. In this case, as noted above, some of Dr. Smith’s statements can reasonably be interpreted as allegations of fact capable of being proven true or false. Considering the context in which the statements were made, a listener could believe that Dr. Cashion engaged in the conduct Dr. Smith attributed to him, i.e., euthanizing the patient or causing or contributing to the patient’s death by providing deficient care. Dr. Smith’s position as a surgeon, having just left the operating room where the patient died, and his relationship to Dr. Cashion, an anesthesiologist whose participation in the surgery afforded him the opportunity to cause or contribute to the patient’s death, support the inference that Dr. Smith was conveying what he believed to be factual information about Dr. Cashion. Thus, we agree with the circuit court’s determination that the statements were not rhetorical hyperbole. We therefore will affirm this portion of the circuit court’s judgment.