Opinion ID: 2602442
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restaurant reviews

Text: Defamation is a publication of a false statement of fact. [8] Statements of opinion cannot be defamatory because there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. [9] This court has held that statements of opinion as opposed to statements of fact are not actionable. [10] A review, by its very nature, constitutes the opinion of the reviewer. [11] Thus, the RGJ argues that even if an incorrect statement of fact is contained in a restaurant review, because it is a review and, as a whole, expresses an opinion, a misstatement of fact in the review cannot be actionable. We disagree. We have previously stated that whether a statement is conditionally privileged is a question of law for the court [12] and should be reviewed de novo. [13] It is true that the term review conveys to the reader that the statement is an expression of opinion and generally, only assertions of fact, not opinion, can be defamatory. [14] However, expressions of opinion may suggest that the speaker knows certain facts to be true or may imply that facts exist which will be sufficient to render the message defamatory if false. [15] We see no reason why this same rule should not apply to statements in restaurant reviews. We agree, however, with the RGJ that statements made in a restaurant review should not be taken out of context. Rather, the review as a whole, and its essential nature as an expression of opinion, should be considered in weighing any allegation of defamatory import. This court has held that a statement is not defamatory if it is an exaggeration or generalization that could be interpreted by a reasonable person as mere rhetorical hyperbole. [16] Nor is a statement defamatory if it is absolutely true, or substantially true. [17] A statement is, however, defamatory if it would tend to lower the subject in the estimation of the community, excite derogatory opinions about the subject, and hold the subject up to contempt. [18] In determining whether a statement is actionable for the purposes of a defamation suit, the court must ask whether a reasonable person would be likely to understand the remark as an expression of the source's opinion or as a statement of existing fact. [19] If the published statements could be construed as defamatory statements of fact, and therefore actionable, then the jury should resolve the matter. [20] However, this court has also stated that comments must be considered in context. [21] Here, the packaged goods and canned bean statements were a small portion of a lengthy review. The full text of the review is as follows: Located on the corner of Pyramid and McCarran and sharing a strip mall with a huge Raley's, Salsa Dave's neon sign is clearly visible from the street. I had seen it driving by a few times and my curiosity finally got the better of me. Upon my arrival, the owner, Dave Pegasus, greets me. Welcome to Salsa Dave's. I'm Dave, and there is the salsa, he says, indicating the salsa bar at the center of the room. I bet you say that to all the girls. We are seated at the corner table by the window where we have a great view of the elaborate design. Where many Mexican restaurants fall into the category of Spartan decoration, this is the exception. A lovely painting by Dave's wife Beverly covers the wall I am sitting next to. Ornate hand painted vases adorn shelves. A female customer at the next table asks about the vases, apparently being a collector who knows their worth. To my eavesdropping delight, Dave tells her about his relative who does business in Mexico and traded them for the price of a few inexpensive appliances. With all this attention paid to the décor, and the owner's obvious love of Mexico, I am looking forward to the food. My spouse orders the Cancun burrito with beef ($5.95) and I select the taco salad ($5.95). A basket of chips, warm and thin and crisp, arrives at our table. I take a trip to the salsa bar to sample the wares. There are four kinds, ranging from mild to hot, including a salsa verde made with tomatillos. Juggling them back to the table in little cups, I start to forget which is which. Unfortunately, the three red salsas are almost identical in color and texture. It would have been great if some were chunkier than others. Although the verde was classified as medium, I experienced it as hotter than the hot salsa, but that may have been due to its more distinct flavor. Then the most puzzling thing happens. When our food arrives, it does not live up to the colorful mural I have my back against. My husband's white burrito arrives overrun with olives, which he silently begins to herd to the side. They bump into the diminutive portion cups of sour cream and guacamole, which are leveled off sharply at the top. The taco salad comes in a tostada shell, and the salsa salad dressing wins points. I scooped out the guacamole with my fork and dug in. One taste told me what I had feared: This pale green stuff was definitely not the real deal. At this point my spouse pointed out what I was beginning to realize: All of this came out of some sort of package. Recalling now the charming story of where those vases came from, I glanced at them. The cost cutting measure applied to the ornamentation had spilled into the kitchen. The can of name-brand beans we spy while paying our check confirms this. I'll say this for the benefit of all concerned; I'll pay a bit more if you live up to the potential of your vision. We conclude that the district court did not err in finding the statement that the food came from a package, taken in context together with the tenor of the entire work, is an expression of opinion. A reasonable person reading the review would understand that Ferrante's opinion about the freshness of the ingredients was based on her consumption of the food. It conveyed Ferrante's opinion that the food was pre-packed rather than an implied statement that she had observed the food coming from a package. Therefore, we conclude that the statement, [a]ll of this came out of some sort of package, is not actionable. The statement regarding canned beans presents a closer issue. Ferrante does not state that canned beans are used in the preparation of Salsa Dave's food, merely that the existence of the can of beans confirms her earlier opinion that the food is pre-packaged. However, it arguably also suggests that Ferrante knows, rather than opines, that Salsa Dave's generally uses canned beans in the preparation of its food. While Salsa Dave's disputes that Ferrante could actually see a can of beans, they do keep canned beans on the premises. Therefore, the statement is substantially true. The district court considered this, together with the entirety of the article, in finding that the statement was purely opinion. We agree. When read in the context of the entire review, a reasonable person would understand the statement to be an expression of Ferrante's belief that canned beans had been used in the preparation of the food, rather than a statement of fact. The only statement of fact that might have defamatory import is that there are canned beans on the premises, which implies canned beans are used in some fashion in the preparation of the food. Since, even if factual, this is a true statement, and the rest of the article is a statement of opinion, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding the statements to be non-actionable. It is these factors that distinguish this case from our holdings in Lubin v. Kunin [22] and Wynn v. Smith. [23] Neither Lubin nor Wynn involved alleged defamatory statements in the context of a review. The contested statements in those cases were capable of defamatory import far more egregious in nature than the presence of canned beans in a restaurant kitchen. Lubin involved accusations of child abuse while Wynn involved allegations that an individual was a front for organized crime. Moreover, both cases involve the character of individuals, not a comment on the quality of the goods or services of a commercial establishment. Finally, the true facts in those cases were substantially different from the defamatory inferences created by misleading or confusing text. Here, even assuming Ferrante did not see the can of beans, the true facts that canned beans are kept in the kitchen are essentially identical with the allegedly false statement that Ferrante saw a can of beans in the kitchen. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment as a matter of law.