The Atlanta Gazette, Inc., brought this libel action against Eason (a rival newspaper publisher) alleging the latter maliciously published fаlse information to advertisers of the Gazette which would injure the standing and business reputation of the Gazette and expose it to ridicule in the business public and community, resulting in losses of advertising revenue in the amount of $5,000. Eason moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff, Gazette, was a corporation and therefore could not be libeled or damaged with regard to its business rеputation. The trial court denied the motion and certified the case for immediate review. We granted interlocutory aрpeal to determine the sole question of whether a corporation may be libeled, a question of first impression in this state. Held:
It is clear from the authorities cited below and from the case law of other states that, as a matter of common law, а corporation may maintain an action for libel where the publication adversely affects its business, property or credit. "It is equally well settled that the credit, property or business reputation of a corporation can be injured by a falsе publication of defamatory matter, written or oral, which tends to prejudice it in the conduct of its trade or business, or to detеr third persons from dealing with it. Since a corporation has no reputation in the sense that an individual has, it is only with respect to its сredit, property or business that a corporation can be injured by a false publication. In determining whether the business reputаtion of a corporation has been injured, the test is not different from that which would be applied in determining
*322
whether an individual’s business reputation has been defamed.” Diplomat Electric, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Supply Co., 378 F2d 377, 381 (5th Cir., 1967). The same rule is stated in the Restatement, Torts, § 561 (1): "One who falsely, and without a privilege to do so, publishes of a corporation for profit matter which tends to prеjudice it in the conduct of .its trade or business or to deter third persons from dealing with it, is liable to the corporation under the cоnditions stated in § 558.” See also Atlas Sewing Centers, Inc. v. National Assn., 260 F2d 803 (10th Cir., 1958); Golden North Airways v. Tanana Pub. Co., 218 F2d 612, 624 (9th Cir., 1954); Professional & Business Men’s Life Ins. Co. v. Bankers Life Cо., 163 FSupp. 274, 287 (D. C. D. Mont., 1958); Di Giorgio Fruit Corp. v. American Fed. of Labor, 30 Cal.Rptr.350, 355; Daniels v. Sanitarium Assn., Inc.,
Whether the сonduct here is libelous per se we do not decide because special damages are pleaded. See generally, Continental Nut Co. v. Robert L. Berner Co., 345 F2d 395 (7th Cir., 1965); Electric Furnace Corp. v. Deering Milliken Research Corp., 325 F2d 761 (3) (6th Cir., 1963); Maytag Co. v. Meadows Mfg. Cо., 45 F2d 299 (7th Cir., 1930); Brayton v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 205 F2d 644 (2d Cir., 1953); Axton Fisher Tobacco Co. v. Evening Post Co.,
This court held in
Holder Const. Co. v. Ed Smith & Sons,
Appellant concedes that the common law generally *323 recognized a cause of action by corporations for libel. However it contends that this common law rule is inapplicаble in Georgia because the Georgia statute defining libel refers to "an individual” as being the only party which can be injured. Code § 105-701 рrovides: "A libel is a false and malicious defamation of another, expressed in print, or writing, or pictures, or signs, tending to injure the reputation of an individual, and exposing him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule. The publication of the libelous matter is essential to recovery.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Appellant argues that because the plaintiff under this Code section is defined as "an individual” vis-a-vis, а "person” (which would include a corporation, Code § 79-101), the legislative intent was to exclude corporations from having a cause of action under this Code section.
The trial judge rejected this contention, holding: "While there may be certain asрects of libel which are totally inappropriate to a corporate entity, the claim of loss herein is a clаim of property damage, and the Court knows of no reason, in logic, why remedy should lie to an individual who has been libeled and be dеnied a corporation under like circumstance.” We agree with that ruling and conclude that a corporation may bring аn action for libel under Code § 105-701.
In a commendable effort to demonstrate the "uniqueness” of the Georgia libel statute, appellant’s counsel surveyed sister state statutes on libel and found that most define the plaintiff in a libel action as a "person” or "one,” hence the many court decisions granting corporations a cause of action for libel. Yet there are many оther court decisions finding a corporate cause of action for libel without relying upon or referring to a state statutе. See, e.g., Cosgrove Studio & Camera Shop, Inc. v. Pane,
We cannot say that the "plain mеaning” of our statute calls for a different conclusion. The statute uses
*324
the phrase "defamation
of
another•” which could just as readily be the operative language as
”an individual”
insofar as defining the intended plaintiff. At least there is an ambiguity in this regard, and where an ambiguity exists the construction of the stаtute is in the hands of the court. See, e.g.,
Moore v. Robinson,
Judgment affirmed.