Donald S. Wheeler v. Robin Yocum and Dispatch Printing Co., 86-LW-0823
| Decision Date | 25 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | 85AP-828,86-LW-0823 |
| Parties | Donald S. WHEELER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robin YOCUM and Dispatch Printing Co., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
J Michael McGinley, for appellant.
John W Zeiger, Gayle E. Parkhill and Steven J. McDonald, for appellees.
Plaintiff, Donald Wheeler, appeals from the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and raises a single assignment of error as follows:
"The trial court erred in sustaining the motion of summary judgment in that there are genuine issues of facts, which, if proven, established the allegations of defamation, infliction of emotional stress and invasion of privacy."
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendant Robin Yocum authored, and defendant Dispatch Printing Company published, three articles in the Columbus Dispatch, which "suggested that plaintiff was criminally involved in one or more homicides of go-go dancers," and which "are false, misleading and made maliciously or in reckless disregard for the truth." Plaintiff also alleged that publications of the articles invaded his privacy.
Defendants submitted two affidavits and exhibits thereto, together with a lengthy deposition of plaintiff in support of their motion for summary judgment, to which plaintiff made no response in the trial court. The articles pertained to the apparent murder of a go-go dancer, Sharla or Charlotte Spangler, and noted that she was listed as a prosecution witness in a federal grand jury investigation of plaintiff and as a defense witness in a civil action brought by plaintiff against a police officer. The article further noted that it was not certain that Charlotte and Sharla Spangler are the same person, although Spangler was also known as "Charlie." The article further stated that police indicated that they have no suspects in the slaying. A reading of the three newspaper articles reveals no accusation against plaintiff in connection with the murder of Spangler or in connection with murders of other go-go dancers referred to in one of the articles, which also noted that the boyfriend of one of the murdered go-go dancers was convicted of her murder.
During his deposition, plaintiff admitted that the newspaper articles make no direct accusation against him but insisted that the articles contained an innuendo that he somehow was involved in the murder of Sharla Spangler. It is expressly held in the second paragraph of the syllabus of Becker v. Toulmin (1956), 165 Ohio St. 549, that:
"Where the words of a publication are not of themselves libelous but are claimed to be so by innuendo, it is for the court to determine whether such words may reasonably be construed as constituting liable per quod so as to present a jury question as to their meaning."
We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to the extent that it found that the words cannot reasonably be construed as constituting liable per quod.
Additionally, it is expressly held in the third paragraph of the syllabus of Becker, supra, that language of a publication susceptible of an innocent interpretation cannot constitute libel per se. Since the publications are susceptible of an innocent interpretation, they are not libel per se. The fourth paragraph of the syllabus of Becker requires that, where it is claimed that words of a publication are libelous by innuendo, the words may constitute libel per quod, but no action may be maintained "in the absence of proof of special damages to the one claiming to be libeled."
The complaint contains no specific allegation of special damages as required by Civ.R. 9(G) if special damages are claimed. Similarly, during his deposition, plaintiff admitted that he had sustained no special damage, the only out-of-pocket expenses to which he repeatedly referred being the expenses incurred in connection with prosecution of this action, which do not constitute special damage within the contemplation of the rule of Becker...
To continue reading
Request your trial