Gentile v. Turkoly
2017 Ohio 1018
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2010 Gentile (plaintiff) performed facial plastic surgery on Turkoly (defendant); Turkoly later sued Gentile for malpractice and battery, winning a jury verdict (later reduced and satisfied).
- In Sept 2013 Turkoly posted a negative review on vitals.com alleging Gentile was not a board-certified plastic surgeon and calling him "unscrupulous."
- In late 2014 Victoria Dos Santos booked a procedure with Gentile, then canceled and received a refund after researching negative reviews and the prior malpractice suit. Gentile alleges Turkoly’s vitals.com review caused the cancellation and other lost business.
- Gentile sued Turkoly for tortious interference with a contract and with business relations; Turkoly moved for summary judgment (denied) and the case proceeded to trial.
- After Gentile’s case-in-chief, the trial court (sua sponte) directed a verdict for Turkoly, concluding insufficient evidence of Turkoly’s knowledge of contracts/relationships, lack of actual malice, and lack of damages.
- Gentile appealed, challenging (1) the court’s authority to sua sponte grant a directed verdict and (2) the merits of the directed verdict; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may sua sponte grant a directed verdict | Civ.R. 50 requires a party motion; court cannot act sua sponte | Trial courts have inherent authority to grant directed verdicts sua sponte if supported by the record | Court affirmed that trial courts have inherent authority to sua sponte direct a verdict when record supports it |
| Whether Gentile presented sufficient evidence of tortious interference with Dos Santos's contract | Dos Santos canceled due to Turkoly’s online review; that shows intentional interference causing breach and damages | No evidence Turkoly knew of Dos Santos’s contract; causation and actual malice not proved; review statements were opinion or true | Directed verdict affirmed: insufficient evidence Turkoly knew of the contract and insufficient proof of intentional interference or damages |
| Whether Gentile presented sufficient evidence of tortious interference with business relationships generally | The vitals.com review deterred prospective patients (e.g., "helpful" votes) causing lost business | No evidence linking the review to lost business beyond Dos Santos; anonymous "helpful" clicks insufficient; no pre/post revenue loss shown | Directed verdict affirmed: no proof Turkoly knew of particular prospective relationships, no intentional interference, and no demonstrable damages |
| Whether the contested statements (not board-certified plastic surgeon; "unscrupulous") were actionable false statements showing actual malice | Statements were false or made with reckless disregard; thus not privileged | Statement about not being an ABMS plastic-surgery diplomate was factually correct; "unscrupulous" is opinion; no actual malice shown | Directed verdict affirmed: statement about ABMS plastic certification was true in context; "unscrupulous" is protected opinion; no actual malice proven |
Key Cases Cited
- A & B–Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 73 Ohio St.3d 1, 651 N.E.2d 1283 (Ohio 1995) (elements of tortious interference and requirement to prove actual malice to overcome privilege)
- Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 85 Ohio St.3d 171, 707 N.E.2d 853 (Ohio 1999) (elements of tortious interference with contract summarized)
- Vail v. The Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 279, 649 N.E.2d 182 (Ohio 1995) (opinions generally protected; totality of circumstances test for verifiability and context)