Hartman v. Kerch

Citations

• 217 N.E.3d 881
• 2023 Ohio 1972

Syllabus

Motion for summary judgment prey defamation false statement substantial truth fact opinion totality of the circumstances defamation per se innocent construction publication rebuttable presumption damages actual malice qualified privilege. Judgment granting defendant-appellee's motion for summary judgment is reversed and judgment denying the plaintiffs-appellants' motion for partial summary judgment as to the issue of liability is affirmed. Genuine issues of material fact remain as to three of the five elements of defamation and neither party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. While the statement \[t]hey prey on older single women\ was a statement of fact, defamatory per se, and published as a matter of law, reasonable minds could differ as to (1) whether the statement was false or substantially true (2) whether the plaintiffs-appellants suffered injury as a result of the statement's publication and (3) whether the statement was protected by qualified privilege and the defendant-appellee acted with the requisite degree of fault. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.