Miller v. Bakersfield News-Bulletin, Inc.

California Court of Appeal Jan 27, 1975 No. Civ. 2247Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the published statement characterizing a political candidate as a disagreeable person was a non-actionable expression of opinion rather than libel.

Issues

Whether the publication of a statement characterizing a political candidate as disagreeable constitutes libel.
Whether the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law following a dismissal on demurrer.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“[I]t is settled law that mere expression of opinion or severe criticism is not libelous, even though it adversely reflects on the fitness of an individual for public office.”

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

Plaintiff and appellant, who will hereafter be referred to as plaintiff brought an action sounding in libel against defendants and respondents. A demurrer was sustained without leave to

[901]

amend as to the complaint and from the subsequent dismissal of the action plaintiff appeals.

We set forth the alleged libelous material which was published in defendant newspaper, Bakersfield News-Bulletin, Inc., to wit:

“ ‘.. . never met a person I did not like . ..’

Will Rogers

Will Rogers never met our supervisor!

Let’s Elect John Mitchell Supervisor-5th District

Citizens of the 5th District”

At the time of publication plaintiff was an incumbent candidate for the Kern County Board of Supervisors, District No. 5. He was defeated. His complaint meets the technical requirements in pleading a cause of action for libel, alleging the publication of defamatory matter, its falsity, special damages, malice, etc.

As a reviewing court we are not bound by the construction placed by the trial court on the pleadings but must make our own independent judgment thereon, even as to matters not expressly ruled upon by the trial court.

In the performance of this obligation we have reviewed the alleged defamatory matter and find that it does not cross the first threshold interposed to the pleading of a good cause of action for libel, Viewing the allegedly libelous statement as we must, as it would be understood by a reasonable reader at whom it was directed, we find that there is but one possible construction which can be placed on the publication set forth above, namely, that even a person as tolerant as the legendary Will Rogers was supposed to have been, would have found the plaintiff to be so disagreeable that he could not have liked him. It is not alleged in the complaint that plaintiff knew Will Rogers (though there is an allusion made in a colloquy with the court to the fact that he had met Mr. Rogers some 45 years ago) but we think that no reader of the alleged libel would believe that the opinion of a man such as Will Rogers, who

Miller v. Bakersfield News-Bulletin, Inc.

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief