In the case of Hartman v. Kerch, 2023-Ohio-1972, an appellate court held that summary judgment was inappropriate on a defamation per se claim when reasonable minds could reach different conclusions as to whether the advisor’s written statement that two men preyed on older single women.
In this case, the men argued that the statement was without basis or support and was unambiguous and damaged the mens’ reputations by suggesting the men had an injurious, destructive, or wasting effect on older women. In response, the advisor argued that the statement was substantially true and used imprecise language that should be interpreted as opinion. The appellate court agreed with the men.
In support of its decision in favor of the men, the appellate court explained that reasonable minds could differ on the truthfulness of the statement.
NOTE: The opinion was based solely on whether summary judgment was appropriate. The final outcome of this case could be drastically different.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.