Opinion ID: 1776445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Actionable Statement

Text: A summary judgment is appropriate upon a showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P. In reviewing a summary judgment, this Court will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and will resolve all reasonable doubts against the movant. Fincher v. Robinson Bros. Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 583 So.2d 256 (Ala.1991). Whether a communication is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning is, in the first instance, a question of law. Harris v. School Annual Publishing Co., 466 So.2d 963, 964 (Ala.1985). Thus, if the communication is not reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning, there is no issue of fact, and summary judgment is proper. Id. at 964-65. However, if the trial court finds that the statement is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning, it is then for the jury to say whether [the statement was] in fact so understood. W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 111, at 781 (5th ed. 1984). The test to factually determine the defamatory nature of a statement is that meaning that would be ascribed to the language by a reader or listener of average or ordinary intelligence, or by a common mind. Loveless v. Graddick, 295 Ala. 142, 325 So.2d 137, 142 (1975). In determining whether the television commercial at issue was libelous, [1] [its] actionable character is to be taken in [its] natural meaning according to the sense in which [it] appears to have been used, and the idea [it] convey[s] to those who heard and saw [it]. [It is] not to be measured by [its] effect when subjected to the critical analysis of a trained legal mind, but must be construed and determined by [its] natural and probable effect upon the mind of the average television viewer. Gray v. WALA-TV, 384 So.2d 1062, 1065 (Ala.1980). If the words employed in the allegedly libelous publication are understood to impute dishonesty or corruption to an individual, they are actionable. Id. Taking the television commercial in its entirety, this Court holds that the television commercial was reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning. Also, after reviewing the entire record, we find that a genuine issue of material fact was presented as to whether such a defamatory meaning was understood.