2019 Ohio 2935
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Charles R. Martin II sued defendant Donald Wegman for defamation, alleging Wegman published statements (including on Facebook) that Martin was filming Wegman and his 12-year-old daughter with a drone for immoral purposes.
- Martin originally filed under one case number, voluntarily dismissed it, and refiled the claim; the appeal from the voluntarily dismissed case (C-180268) was dismissed as improper.
- Wegman moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6); the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failing to state a claim.
- Martin appealed, arguing the complaint adequately pleaded defamation; the appellate court reviewed the dismissal de novo.
- The appellate court determined Martin pleaded a defamation per quod claim (requiring special damages) rather than defamation per se, but his complaint failed to allege special (pecuniary) damages with the specificity required by Civ.R. 9(G).
- Because the defect (failure to plead special damages) was curable, the appellate court modified the dismissal to be without prejudice and affirmed as modified; the separate appeal from the voluntarily dismissed case was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint sufficiently pleads defamation to survive Civ.R. 12(B)(6) | Martin: complaint alleges false, published statements implying immoral conduct and injury to reputation and profession | Wegman: complaint fails to state a claim and lacks required specificity/attachments | Complaint alleges defamation per quod (requires special damages) and does not plead special damages with required specificity; dismissal proper |
| Whether the alleged statement is defamatory per se or per quod | Martin: language in complaint tracks per se formulations (injures profession, brings into contempt) | Wegman: the Facebook post requires interpretation/innuendo, so not defamatory on its face | Court: statement is defamatory per quod (requires extrinsic interpretation), not per se |
| Whether damages were adequately pleaded | Martin: alleged injury to reputation and profession suffices | Wegman: plaintiff must plead actual pecuniary/special damages for per quod claim | Held: Martin did not allege special/pecuniary damages or the specificity Civ.R. 9(G) requires; pleadings insufficient |
| Proper disposition of dismissal (with or without prejudice) | Martin: sought reversal of dismissal | Wegman: dismissal appropriate; trial court had dismissed with prejudice | Held: dismissal should be without prejudice because the failure to plead special damages is potentially curable; appeal from the voluntarily dismissed earlier case was dismissed as improvident |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (de novo review of Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- Thomas v. Cohr, Inc., 197 Ohio App.3d 145 (elements of an Ohio defamation claim)
- Becker v. Toulmin, 165 Ohio St. 549 (distinction between defamation per se and per quod)
- Williams v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 162 Ohio App.3d 596 (when general allegations suffices for per se; need for special damages for per quod)
- Bigelow v. Brumley, 138 Ohio St. 574 (failure to plead special damages warrants dismissal of per quod claim)
- Moore v. P. W. Pub. Co., 3 Ohio St.2d 183 (special damages defined as direct financial losses resulting from impaired reputation)
- Fletcher v. Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland, 120 Ohio St.3d 167 (12(B)(6) dismissals are normally without prejudice when the claim can be repleaded)