from Edo Kobe v Smithruled yesterday by the Maryland Court of Appeals (Judges Kathryn Grill Graeff, Kevin Arthur, and James Eyler):
Viewed in the light most favorable to Edokobi, the complaint generally makes three claims: firstSmith called Edokobi “a piece of trash” during an argument in front of two Edokobi employees over payment for work done by Smith. secondAfter Edokobi’s employees left, Smith placed an “evil curse” on Edokobi’s life and career.and thirdIn private text messages between the parties, Smith called Edokobi “stupid,” “evil” and “stupid” and threatened to remove Edokobi’s industrial equipment from his warehouse.
Edokobi’s second and third claims cannot be satisfied [publication] Elements of defamation. Even if the alleged statements were defamatory, they were not made to or in the presence of a third person….
Although [the first] The statement was made in front of a third person and is not defamatory from a legal perspective. “Defamatory speech is a [that] Tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, contempt or ridicule, thereby preventing others in the community from having a favorable opinion of that person, or from associating or dealing with that person. words may constitute a defamatory interpretation.
More importantly, “statements that cannot reasonably be construed as statements of fact” cannot constitute defamation.For example, “Rhetorical statements that use loose, figurative, or exaggerated language[,]”Unless it is accompanied by a verifiable false statement of fact, it does not constitute defamation from a legal perspective…
To be sure, … a statement in the form of an opinion may still be actionable “if it implies that undisclosed defamatory facts are the basis for the opinion.”However, the statement did not rise to the level of defamation “simply because the subject of the statement [statement] Discover [it] Annoying, offensive or embarrassing. You can also take a look, For example, Mayer v.Novak338 NW2d 631, 635 (ND 1983) (holding that calling someone a “bastard” does not constitute libel); Cowen v. Time Inc., 245 NYS2d 723, 725–26 (1963) (holding that calling someone an “idiot” does not constitute libel). “The common law has always made a strict distinction between truly defamatory communications. [and] Obscene, vulgar, insulting, abusive, abusive, [or] Other invective. [may be]it is considered a part of life for which defamation law provides no remedy.
Smith’s statement calling Edokobi “trash” was not defamatory. In their ordinary sense, these words can only be understood as a metaphor through which the speaker – Smith – expresses an unfavorable view of the subject – Edokobi. This statement cannot reasonably be construed as a statement of actual fact and does not by itself imply an undisclosed allegation of defamatory fact as a basis for the opinion.This is not a “tendency to expose” [the subject] Public contempt, hatred, contempt, or ridicule that prevents others in the community from having a favorable opinion of, or from associating or dealing with, that person.
In short: Edokobi could be insult According to Smith’s statement, however, from a legal perspective he was not defamation through it. Therefore, Edokobi’s complaint failed to assert a defamation claim and the circuit court did not err in dismissing the complaint.
