7.8 DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION
7.801 In General. Because courts must view an allegedly defamatory statement in context, an undeniably true statement may nevertheless convey a false and defamatory impression. For instance, in Memphis Pub-lishing Co. v. Nichols, 459 a newspaper reported that a wife came home to find her husband there with another woman and shot her. The story implied that the husband and the "other woman" were having an affair. However, the
[Page 909]
newspaper failed to report that the husband and the "other woman" were attending a neighborhood meeting with the "other woman's" husband and others. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the false implication could support a defamation claim. 460
7.802 Virginia Approach. As explained in paragraph 7.4, Virginia has to a certain extent built a "defamation by implication" doctrine into its basic rules on how to interpret an allegedly defamatory communication. It makes little practical difference whether the court applies the doctrine as part of its threshold review of the statements or as part of a separate standalone analysis.
A 2015 Virginia Supreme Court case provided a textbook example of defamation by implication. In Pendleton v. Newsome, 461 a parent whose child died at school from a peanut allergy sued the school district for implying that she had not provided the necessary medication to the school. The school's statements emphasized how important it was for parents to provide the proper medication to their child's school. The statements were undoubtedly accurate but falsely implied that the plaintiff had not done so. 462
In 1995, the Virginia Supreme Court took an expansive view of such a defamation claim. In Schnupp v. Smith, 463 a policeman reported that the plaintiff was present in a van that apparently was involved in a drug transaction. The plaintiff sued the police officer for defamation, and the officer replied that he had merely reported provable objective facts. However, the court, indicating that "a defamatory charge may be made by inference," found that the statements, "assisted by the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the words used," falsely imputed the crime of aiding and abetting drug pos-session. 464 The court held that the statements amounted to per se defamation.
In 2014, the Virginia Supreme Court took a different direction, affirming a trial court's motion to strike a $3 million compensatory damage jury award to a plaintiff who claimed that a newspaper implied that he had used his position as a high school employee to arrange lenient punishment for his son after a fight. As the Virginia Supreme Court explained, "[w]here, as here,
[Page 910]
a plaintiff alleges that he has been defamed not by statements of fact that are literally true but by an implication arising from them, the alleged implication must be reasonably drawn from the words actually used." 465
In 2015, the Virginia Supreme Court took a narrower view, holding that inferences cannot rise above the language of the documents or the statements themselves 466
Federal courts have also taken a fairly broad approach. For instance, in one of the many cases involving the alleged anthrax killer, the Fourth...
