Court Opinion

ID: 9536282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:57:06.441607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:29.973089
License: Public Domain

OMAN, Judge (dissenting). I am unable to agree with the majority opinion because of my understanding of the meaning of “libel per se” as set forth in the decisions of the Supreme Court of New Mexico. In the recent case of McGaw v. Webster, 79 N.M. 104, 440 P.2d 296 (1968), our Supreme Court, in reviewing its prior decisions, reaffirmed the following definition and rules of construction: “Libel per se was defined in Chase v. New Mexico Pub. Co., supra [53 N.M. 145, 203 P.2d 594] as: “ ‘Any false and malicious writing published of another is libelous per se, when its tendency is to render him contemptible or ridiculous in public estimation, or expose him to public hatred, or contempt, or to hinder virtuous men from association with him.’ ****** “ ‘The term ‘per se’ means by itself; simply as such; in its own nature without reference to its relation; and in connection with libel, the term is applied to words which are actionable because they of themselves, without anything more, are opprobrious.’ “To determine whether the publication is libelous per se, the letter alone must be construed, stripped of all insinuations, innuendo, colloquium and explanatory circumstances. Chase v. New Mexico Pub. Co., supra; Young v. New Mexico Broadcasting Co., supra [60 N.M. 475, 292 P.2d 776]. The innuendo pleaded can neither add to nor enlarge the sense of the words themselves. All innuendo, therefore, must be disregarded. We are required to determine whether the letter itself, and without more, is defamatory on its face, within the four corners thereof. “In construing the claimed defamatory article, the language said to be libelous is to be given its plain and natural meaning and to be viewed by the court as people reading it would ordinarily understand and give it meaning, without knowledge or use of any special facts or circumstances. Furthermore, we are committed to the rule that the language claimed to be libelous must be susceptible of but a single meaning and a defamatory meaning must be the only one of which the writing is susceptible. Del Rico v. New Mexican, supra [56 N.M. 538, 246 P.2d 206] ; Dillard v. Shattuck, supra [36 N.M. 202, 11 P.2d 543]. * * *” In my opinion, the claimed libelous language in the letter here in question does not tend to render plaintiff “ ‘ * * * contemptible or ridiculous in public estimation, or expose him to public hatred, or contempt, or to hinder virtuous men from association with him.’ ” I also am unable to find that the claimed libelous language is “ * * * susceptible of but a single meaning * * ” and that this is a “defamatory meaning.” I appreciate that in several jurisdictions the recognized categories of slander per se have been held to also constitute libel per se. Although the New Mexico cases at times have seemed to confuse libel and slander, they have never included within “libel per se” the recognized categories of “slander per se,” except as the same may come within the foregoing quoted definition of “libel per se.” See Dillard v. Shattuck, 36 N.M. 202, 11 P.2d 543 (1932), wherein the court recognized the classification of slander as set forth in Newell, Slander and Libel, § 4, pg. 6 (4th Ed.1924). Libel and slander are still distinct actions in New Mexico. As recently as its decision in Ramsey v. Zeigner, 79 N.M. 457, 444 P.2d 968 (1968), which involved libel per se, our Supreme Court, in referring to Dillard v. Shattuck, supra, stated: “ * * * Furthermore, the action there [in the Dillard case] was for slander where different rules are applicable.” Perhaps our Supreme Court should reexamine the validity of the distinction it has consistently made between libel “per se” and “per quod” since the decision in Chase v. New Mexico Pub. Co., 53 N.M. 145, 203 P.2d 594 (1949). Such a reexamination was suggested by the dissenting opinion of Justice Moise in McGaw v. Webster, supra, which was concurred in by Justice Carmody. A reconsideration of this distinction was urged upon the Court of Appeals in Thomas v. Frost, 79 N.M. 125, 440 P.2d 800 (Ct.App. 1968), but was not undertaken because of the recentness of the decision in McGaw v. Webster, supra. See also, Schoen, Torts-Libel and Slander -The Libel Per Se-Libel Per Quod Distinction in New Mexico, 4 Natural Resources J., 590 (1965), wherein the abolishment of the distinction is urged. If our Supreme Court should reexamine the distinction between “libel per se” and “libel per quod,” I am not suggesting it confine its consideration to the abolishment of the distinction and the return to the common law definition of libel. I suggest the whole area of libel and slander be reconsidered, with a view to the possible abolishment of the distinction between libel and slander, and a redefinition of defamation for the purpose of giving proper consideration to the extent of the publication of the defamatory matter, the pecuniary injury resulting or likely to result from the publication, and the necessity of publication of matters for the protection of the public, in our very complex and commercialized society, from the limitless chicanery, dishonesty and unfair and irresponsible practices conceivable by the minds of some men. There has been no opinion by our Supreme Court since the decisions in the cases of McGaw v. Webster, supra, and Thomas v. Frost, supra, to cause me to believe that there has been any relaxation in the distinction between “libel per se” and “libel per quod,” or that there has been any departure from the above quoted definition of “libel per se.” For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.