Court Opinion

ID: 9531724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:14:12.095951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:34.311811
License: Public Domain

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
dissenting.
The underlying defamation case here was dismissed for failure to state a claim. ORCP 21A(8). Plaintiffs appeal from that judgment was dismissed as untimely. Plaintiff then filed this malpractice action against his former attorney for not timely filing his appeal. A different judge dismissed this action for failure to state a claim after finding
«* * * that the trial court correctly dismissed the underlying case of Bock v. KOIN TV., Inc., et al, for the reason that the statements alleged as the basis of the claim for defamation in the Bock v. KOIN TV case were not, as a matter of law, capable of a defamatory meaning, and therefore, plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief against defendant herein.”
I would hold that the rulings of the two circuit judges were correct. As a matter of law, Bryant’s statements were mere statements of opinion. They were not defamatory. See Gertz v. Welch, 418 US 323, 94 S Ct 2997, 41 L Ed 2d 789 (1974); Cushman v. Day, 43 Or App 123, 126, 602 P2d 327 (1979); see also Cole v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 386 Mass 303, 435 NE2d 1021, cert den 459 US 1037 (1982).
Additionally, Bryant’s statements were not defamatory, because they did not impugn plaintiffs overall skill, fitness or competence to perform his trade or profession. See Walsh v. Consolidated Freightways, 278 Or 347, 563 P2d 1205 (1977); Newton v. Family Federal Savings & Loan, 48 Or App 373, 616 P2d 1213 (1980); see also Ratzel v. New York News Publishing Co., 73 NYS 849, 67 App Div 598 (1902). Both *104Walsh and Newton are relied on by the majority; however, those cases are clearly distinguishable on their facts.
As a matter of law, plaintiffs appeal in the underlying defamation action would have been unsuccessful. Therefore, defendant’s alleged malpractice caused plaintiff no harm.
I respectfully dissent.