Opinion ID: 1168234
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standards governing review

Text: [1] In reviewing a denial or grant of summary judgment, this court applies the same standard as a trial court: construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the court asks whether a reasonable jury could find in favor of that party. If the answer is yes, the motion for summary judgment should be denied and the question should go to the jury. Wendle v. Farrow, 102 Wn.2d 380, 383, 686 P.2d 480 (1984). The plaintiff alleging defamation must show four elements: falsity, an unprivileged communication, fault and damage. Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wn.2d 473, 486, 635 P.2d 1081 (1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124 (1982). If the plaintiff is a public figure and the defamation concerns his public duties, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with malice. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 11 L.Ed.2d 686, 84 S.Ct. 710, 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 (1964). All the elements of defamation must be shown with convincing clarity. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255-56, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986); Chase v. Daily Record, Inc., 83 Wn.2d 37, 43, 515 P.2d 154 (1973). [2] The plaintiff responding to a motion for summary judgment in a defamation case must show that the jury could decide in his favor while applying the clear and convincing evidence standard. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., supra . The Court has expressly cautioned, however, that the clear and convincing evidence standard involved in defamation cases does not materially alter the normal standard for deciding motions for summary judgment. While the issue turns on what the jury could find, and while the court must keep in mind that the jury must base its decision on clear and convincing evidence, the evidence is still construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and the motion is denied if the jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party. Our holding that the clear-and-convincing standard of proof should be taken into account in ruling on summary judgment motions does not denigrate the role of the jury. It by no means authorizes trial on affidavits. Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict. The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Neither do we suggest that the trial courts should act other than with caution in granting summary judgment or that the trial court may not deny summary judgment in a case where there is reason to believe that the better course would be to proceed to a full trial. (Citation omitted.) Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Applying these standards, we have determined that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment.