Opinion ID: 1601643
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: cases cited by the plaintiffs.

Text: The plaintiffs mistakenly argue that no constitutional issue is raised by this appeal, and the only legal question [presented] is whether, under the common law of Michigan, implication, insinuation or inference may support a defamation action. On the contrary, the legal question presented whether, in alleging defamation by implication, the plaintiffs carried their burden of proving falsity, is one of constitutional import. In cases challenging reports by the media on matters of public interest, the decision in Hepps dictates that a private-figure plaintiff bears the burden of proving falsity. Many of the cases cited by the plaintiffs for the proposition that a cause of action exists for defamation by implication have little bearing on this case. Randall v Evening News Ass'n, 79 Mich 266; 44 NW 783 (1890), involved a cartoon that implied a legislator had improperly received funds from the alcohol lobby. The logic of Sullivan would clearly foreclose that case today absent a showing of falsity and actual malice. Bronkowski v Arlan's Dep't Store, 12 Mich App 88; 162 NW2d 347 (1968), and Smith v Fergan, 181 Mich App 594; 450 NW2d 3 (1989), involved private-figure plaintiffs alleging libel for purely private-interest matters. As noted earlier, the logic of Dun & Bradstreet, supra, suggests that the private-figure/private-interest subject matter configuration does not trigger heightened First Amendment scrutiny. Hodgkins Kennels, Inc v Durbin, 170 Mich App 474; 429 NW2d 189 (1988), another case cited by plaintiffs, properly read, does not involve claims of defamation by implication. The plaintiffs' arguments often confuse the issue of defamatory meaning with the issue of falsity. The plaintiffs cite Schultz v Reader's Digest Ass'n, 468 F Supp 551, 554 (ED Mich, 1979), where the district court held that a published article's impression that Mr. Schultz may have been involved in `setting up' Jimmy Hoffa to be murdered ... is clearly defamatory. However, even assuming that the Pine Knob series as a whole conveyed a defamatory impression, the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving underlying falsity. [34] Ironically, the plaintiff also cites Dougherty v Capitol Cities Communications, Inc, 631 F Supp 1566 (ED Mich, 1986), for the proposition that the defamatory tone of a radio broadcast which resulted from the omission of known facts was capable of supporting plaintiff's defamation action even though plaintiff could not point to a single specific statement in the broadcast that was defamatory and false. In Dougherty, the district court soundly trounced the plaintiff's arguments for defamation by implication after reviewing all the evidence, much as the trial court did in this case. As in this case, the court noted that [a]lthough plaintiff painstakingly presents his version of the story behind each of the broadcasts ... he does not succeed in uncovering any significant statement about him that is false. Id. at 1569. The court went on to hold that it is impossible to discern any false information in the broadcasts. Each statement made had a factual basis, and where they were not factual statements, ... they were [nonactionable statements of opinion]. Id. at 1576. The plaintiffs also cite an extensive list of cases from other jurisdictions to illustrate that defamation by implication is a well-established cause of action. We note that many of these cases are inapplicable to the instant case because they involve either public figures, and focus on the issue of actual malice not at issue here, [35] or involve private plaintiffs on matters of private interest. [36] In any event, the questions whether a statement is capable of rendering a defamatory implication and whether, in fact, a plaintiff has proved falsity in an implication are separate inquiries. A plaintiff alleging defamation by implication must still prove material falsity. To do otherwise would allow a plaintiff to recover without a showing of falsity, in contravention of the rule announced in Hepps. Our review of the plaintiffs' proofs, conducted below, convinces us that the plaintiffs failed to make such a showing.