Economopoulos v. A. G. Pollard Co.
1914 Mass. LEXIS 1394, 105 N.E. 896, 218 Mass. 294 (1914)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a defamatory statement to be considered 'published,' it must be communicated to a third party who understands its defamatory meaning. There is no publication if a statement is made only to the plaintiff, or if it is made in a language not understood by any third party present.
Facts:
- An employee of the defendant, named Carrier, made a statement in English to the plaintiff.
- No one other than the plaintiff was present to hear Carrier's English statement.
- Another employee of the defendant, named Míralos, made a statement in Greek to the plaintiff.
- Míralos's Greek statement was made in the presence of other people.
- There was no evidence that any of the third parties present understood the Greek language.
- The plaintiff alleged that both the English and Greek statements were accusations of larceny.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant for slander in a trial court.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court judge directed a verdict for the defendant.
- The plaintiff appealed the directed verdict to this court by filing 'exceptions'.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'publication' element of defamation occur when a defamatory statement is made either (1) directly to the plaintiff with no third party present to hear it, or (2) in a foreign language in the presence of third parties who are not shown to understand that language?
Opinions:
Majority - Loring, J.
No. A defamatory statement is not legally published if no third party comprehends its meaning. For the English statement, there was no publication because the evidence showed that no one but the plaintiff could have heard the words. For the Greek statement, there was likewise no publication; although third parties were present, there was no evidence that any of them understood the Greek language. Citing Sheffill v. Van Deusen, the court reasoned that communication to a third party who does not understand the language is not a publication. Because the plaintiff failed to prove the essential element of publication for either statement, the defendant is not liable.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'publication' element in defamation law, emphasizing that publication requires comprehension, not just audition. It establishes that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove not only that a third party was present but also that this third party understood the defamatory meaning of the communication. This precedent narrows the path for defamation claims involving statements made in foreign languages or in private, requiring clear evidence that the defamatory content was actually conveyed to and understood by a third person.
