This аction for libel was brought in the Superior Court on January 3, 1984, by Wayne Tartaglia (Wayne) because of the later of two articles by Townsend, published in The Enterprise, a Brockton newspaper (newspaper). The articles appeared in a weekly boxing column called “Ringwise.” The first article (November 4, 1983) described a portrait of the late pugilist “Rocky” Marciano, a former heavyweight champion, held in great esteem in his native city, Brockton. According to the article, a Brockton rеsident found the portrait in his garage. Henry Tartaglia (usually referred to, in the article and here, as “Hank”) was described in the second article, mentioned below, as “a well known Brockton businessman” and the owner of a restaurant known as “Melio’s” in Norton. *694 The finder of the portrait was said to have known that Hank (who is not a party to this litigation) greatly admired Marciano so he “gave the painting to Hank’s cousin to pass along to him.” The article said the painting was then “hanging in the lounge of Melio’s ... on the wall right nеxt to a gigantic painting of the punch of the century, Rocky literally knocking Joe Walcott’s head out of shape to capture the heavyweight championship of the world. Anyhow, Peter Marciano [younger brother of Rocky] . . . saw the painting and fell in love with it. So Hank hired [a] local artist ... to paint a copy . . . and . . . Hank invited Peter over to his restaurant for dinner and presented it to him.” 2
The present action relates to the second article, published in the newspaper on Decembеr 23, 1983. That article recited much of the background mentioned in the earlier article. It then proceeded to identify Hank’s cousin. “Henry’s cousin, by the way, is Wayne Tartaglia, who works for the Brockton Water Dept. Hank chuckled the other day and said they call him ‘Wicked Wayne. ’ ” The later article then mentioned the dinner at Melio’s at which the portrait copy was given by Hank to Peter Marciano and proceeded with the material set out in the margin. 3 The excerpts from the articles give a reasonable indication of their semi-jocular, informal tone.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the statements complained of (a) were not defamatory as matter of law, but were matters of opinion based upon disclоsed facts, and (b) were not published negligently. It was contended that there was no genuine dispute concerning any material fact.
Wayne filed an affidavit in response to this motion which took issue with both articles on certain background facts. *695 Wayne asserted (a) that the painting had been given a number of years previously to him (Wayne) by a donor, who did not know Hank and who did not direct that it be given to Hank; (b) that the painting had not been found in a garage, but had been kept in Wayne’s apartment, except for two occasions when, for a period of time, he had lent it to another, the second time to Hank Tartaglia at his request (but without giving him ownership); (c) that on the night when he removed the painting from Melio’s, he had “walked into the restaurant” and had a convеrsation with Hank for a period of time; (d) that while he was there he conducted himself “in an appropriate and gentlemanly fashion,” (e) that Hank “was fully informed of . . . [Wayne’s] decision to take back the painting and consented” to that action 4 ; and (f) that Dennis Frawley (see note 3, supra) was not present while he (Wayne) was in the restaurant.
Townsеnd filed an affidavit in support of his motion for summary judgment. This gave an account of the removal of the painting from the restaurant, based on interviews by Townsend with Dennis Frawley and with a barmaid at the restaurant. The affidavit stated that the affiant did not feel it necessary to talk to Wayne because he had confidence in two of his informants and “especially since neither Hank . . . nor anyone else” had suggested that Wayne had “acted unlawfully in repossessing the painting.”
*696 A Superior Court judge entered summary judgment for the defendants without stating the grounds for his action. Wayne has appealed.
1. There is no reasonable suggestion in this record that Wayne is a public figure. Although Wayne apparently was an employee of the Brockton Water Department, the articles in the newspaper had no relation to his performance in his employment. He also cannot be regarded as a “public official” for purposes of this case. Accordingly, we treat most of the principles of
New York Times
v. Sullivan,
2. The common law mie in Massachusetts is that “[wjords may be found to be defamatory if they hold the plaintiff up to contempt, hatred, scorn, or ridicule or tend to impair his standing in the community,” at least to his discredit “in the minds of a considerable and respectable class of the community.”
Grande & Son
v.
Chace,
The articles certainly do not suggest that Wayne has engaged in any significant misconduct. Nevertheless, on the basis of Wayne’s affidavit, the articlеs must be regarded as in various
*697
respects inaccurate and to have caused Wayne (and perhaps other members of his family) distress and exposed him to some ridicule. Nonactionable statements of opinion may cause pain to the subject of them even if “written, not for serious effect, but to sting and [to] be quickly forgotten.” It is likely that for “the victim of ridicule, the forgetting may not be easy.” See
Myers
v.
Boston Magazine Co.,
3. There is no perceptible defamatory aspeсt in the erroneous statement that the painting was found in Wayne’s garage, even if in Brockton that may be regarded as an inappropriate spot for a picture of a local hero. The quotation of Hank referring to “Wicked Wayne” does not suggest any wickedness in fact, particularly as Hank is described as having “chuckled,” as he said it. The columnist, in attributing incorrectly such a nickname to Wayne, if he thought about it, could not have expected his action to please Wayne but, in view of thе tone of the article as a whole, we regard the statement as mischievous rather than defamatory.
The inaccurate statement that Wayne “gave” the painting to Hank, when it must be taken (on Wayne’s affidavit) to have been a loan, seems thе most significant approach to defamation in the article, at least when coupled with the statement that *698 Wayne “burst” into Melio’s and took the picture. The tongue-in-cheek tone of the article, describing an event involving apparently friеndly cousins, makes it highly improbable that even readers of a column on boxing matters could regard the language as a charge of theft. Particularly is this so in view of the word “repossession” in describing the event. At most it could be thought to be a suggestion that Waynе was taking back a previous act of intra-family generosity somewhat petulantly, abruptly, and with impatience. Of course, on Wayne’s affidavit, it here must be taken as having been done with moderation and with Hank’s consent. The basic inaccuracies, however, in context do not appear significant nor do they indicate any hostility or animosity by the author toward Wayne.
We recognize that in
Smith
v.
Suburban Restaurants, Inc.,
In view of our conclusion that the second article as a whole was an expression of opinion, we need not consider whether Townsend was negligent in not verifying his facts with Wayne, аlthough he obviously had time to do so. Compare
Schrottman
v.
Barnicle,
No party is to have costs of this appeal (see note 5, supra).
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
Wayne, in a memorandum in answer to the two defendants’ motion for summary judgment, mentioned below, concedes that the article оf November 4, 1983, is not defamatory of him, but contends that, as background to a later article of December 23, 1983, it makes the later article “even more libelous than it is already.”
The statement read: “Well, maybe it was because he wasn’t invited to the party. Maybe it was because his picture wasn’t in the paper. Or his *695 name. But later that Friday night, the very night the story was in the paper, Wayne Tartaglia — Wicked Wayne of the Water Dept. — burst into the eating place, took the original off the wall and left the restaurant with it.
“So Hank . . . who had a copy of the portrait painted аnd gave it to Peter Marciano, was left with no painting at all.
“Dennis Frawley, who witnessed the repossession of the painting by Wayne . . . summed the situation up by paraphrasing Leo Derocher [sic], ‘All-around nice guys, all around, finish last, ’ he said” (emphasis supplied).
Wаyne’s affidavit further set out that people did not call him “Wicked Wayne” before the article of December 23, 1983; that thereafter he has received numerous calls from people making fun of the name and comments about the article frоm fellow workers; that his parents have been upset by the story; that his “life has been greatly disrupted” by the article; and that neither “Townsend [n]or anyone from the” newspaper had been in touch with him to obtain his “version of the story.”
Of course, part of the context of alleged defamatory comments may be whether their author and publisher acted reasonably, upon having cause to know that the comments, disclosed as the basis of an opinion, have caused significant distress to a subject of the comments. Efforts to ascertain and correct any inaccuracies in stating the basis for the comments, (with publicity comparable to that given to the original comments) will not make the comments less defamatory, but the efforts may shed some light on whether the inaccuracies (even if they do not make the defendants subject to liability) were intentional or inadvertent. Unhappily, this record reveals no attempt by the defendants to reduce Wayne’s sense of injury by any public correction of the аrticles.
The
Myers
case,