Smith v. Humane Society of United States
2017 Mo. LEXIS 156
Mo.2017Background
- Ms. Smith sued HSUS and Missourians for the Protection of Dogs for defamation and false light based on the Dirty Dozen report and related materials about Proposition B.
- The materials allegedly portrayed Smith’s Kennel as one of Missouri’s worst puppy mills and implied broader violations, affecting her business reputation.
- HSUS moved to dismiss, arguing the statements were absolute opinions and protected by privilege; Missourians for the Protection of Dogs joined; the circuit court dismissed.
- Ms. Smith alleged Counts I–III: defamation (negligence and with knowledge/reckless disregard), false light, and demanded damages and punitive damages for the latter two.
- The Dirty Dozen report described kennels by number and severity of violations, with Smith’s kennel listed as a sixth entry among the 12.
- The court analyzed whether the statements were actionable defamation or protected opinion, and whether a false light claim exists in Missouri.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statements are actionable defamation. | Smith contends no absolute privilege for opinions; statements imply false facts. | HSUS and Missourians argue statements are protected opinion and not provable as false. | No actionable defamation; statements are subjective and not provable false. |
| Whether the statements are statements of opinion protected by privilege. | Nazeri analysis shows potential implied facts; not merely opinion. | Opinions are absolutely privileged; ratings and rankings are subjective. | Absolute privilege applies; statements not actionable. |
| Whether a cognizable false light claim exists. | False implications about Smith’s kennel degraded her privacy and reputation. | False light not recognized here; defamation claims control; if actionable or not. | Missouri does not recognize a false light claim here; dismissed. |
| Whether the statements about the Dirty Dozen’s methods and selections imply objective facts about Smith. | Implied facts about severity and violations could be proven false. | Severity and selection are subjective, not provable as false. | Subjective assessments cannot be proven false; no actionable defamation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nazeri v. Mo. Valley Coll., 860 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. banc 1993) (test for whether an ostensible 'opinion' implies objective facts)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1990) (opinions may imply facts; not all opinions are non-actionable)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (Supreme Court 1974) (no liability for unprotected opinions; competition of ideas)
- Letter Carriers, AFL–CIO v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (Supreme Court 1974) (loose language and hyperbole not taken as fact)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court 1964) (standard for defamation involving public concerns)
- Sullivan v. Pulitzer Broad. Co., 709 S.W.2d 475 (Mo. banc 1986) (false light considerations connected to defamation)
- Overcast v. Billings Mutual Ins. Co., 11 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. banc 2000) (recognition of Milkovich-based test in Missouri)