Opinion ID: 2604718
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: False and Defamatory Statement

Text: The truth of defendants' statement is questionable but plaintiff did not establish its falsity as a matter of law. The ad stated that Ariyoshi and Beamer were controlled by Trask and Mehau. While Beamer refutes its truth, both Reed and Nishiki maintain in their answer, affidavit, and deposition that the statement is true. The defendants' answer claims the statement was true. R. at 16. Nishiki's affidavit states I continue to believe that its [the ad's] contents were true in substance and in fact... . R. at 79-80. Reed's affidavit also claims no doubts as to the truth of the statement. R. at 82. Finally, in his deposition Nishiki stated he considered the statement true. [6] Viewing the record from defendants' point of view there is at least some question whether Beamer was in fact controlled by Trask and Mehau and it is a question of fact for the jury. Whether defendants' statement was defamatory also raises a question of fact. This court recently stated the proper test for ascertaining when a statement is defamatory: A communication is defamatory when it tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559 (1976); Kahanamoku v. Advertiser, 25 Haw. 701 (1920). Whether a communication is defamatory `depends, among other factors, upon the temper of the times, the current of contemporary public opinion, with the result that words, harmless in one age, in one community, may be highly damaging to reputation at another time or in a different place.' Schermerhorn v. Rosenberg, 73 A.D.2d 276, 284, 426 N.Y.S.2d 274, 282 (1980). Kahanamoku, supra. Fernandes v. Tenbruggencate, 65 Haw. at 228, 649 P.2d at 1147. Here the ad stated that Beamer was controlled by Trask and Mehau, without express mention of the organized crime connection. Thus the question is whether use of the word control in connection with the names Trask and Mehau is defamatory per se; that is, whether MEHAU AND TRASK NEVER HELP ANYONE THEY DON'T CONTROL is capable of either an innocent or defamatory interpretation, or could only as a matter of law be interpreted as defamatory. Both sides bombard us with different definitions of control. [7] Viewing the ad itself, the words known puppet and Mehau and Trask running our State government might lead the reader to interpret control as dominate or dictate. In his deposition, however, Nishiki gave a more innocuous definition: Q. [Schutter] What do you mean by control? A. [Nishiki] Influence. Q. [Schutter] Influence? Well, you follow up by saying, If you don't want Mehau and Trask running our state government, be careful not to vote for Ariyoshi and Beamer. Now, by that, do you mean running the government, or that they might influence the government? A. [Nishiki] They might influence. Q. [Schutter] They have great influence? A. [Nishiki] Yes. Q. [Schutter] But you say running our government. Did you mean running our government or did you mean influencing our government? A. [Nishiki] Well, I said that they have great influence, and that is what I'm saying. Deposition of Wayne Nishiki at p. 192. [8] Viewing the issue in defendants' light, we cannot say the assertion that Beamer was strongly influenced by two men was defamatory per se. The possible defamatory character of the statement lies in the implication that Beamer was a puppet of a union leader and a rumored underworld figure. In the context of the times, that implication was very feasible, but on its face the statement falls short of being defamatory as a matter of law. It is for the jury to consider the context of the statement and determine whether it lowered Beamer's reputation in the estimation of the community. Fong v. Merena, 66 Haw. 73, 74 n. 1, 655 P.2d 875, 876 n. 1 (1982); Fernandes v. Tenbruggencate, 65 Haw. at 228, 649 P.2d at 1147; Chedester v. Stecker, 64 Haw. 464, 469, 643 P.2d 532, 535 (1982). In Rodriguez, this court ruled in part that the defamatory character of another of Nishiki's statements (CRIMINALS CONTROL ENTERTAINERS Did you know that organized crime has a stranglehold on our entertainment industry?) was a matter for the jury: There is an issue of fact as to whether Nishiki's statement was susceptible to an innocent meaning by reasonable persons and whether Nishiki acted with the requisite actual malice. We have held in the past that if a statement can be interpreted as having both an innocent and a defamatory meaning, it is within the province of the jury, rather than the trial court in summary judgment, to determine the sense in which it was understood. Rodriguez, 65 Haw. at 445, 653 P.2d at 1154-55. The statement at issue in this case (MEHAU AND TRASK NEVER HELP ANYONE THEY DON'T CONTROL) is similar enough that the question of whether it was defamatory should go to the jury.