Keith Murphy v. Paul A. Rish (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is a civil matter brought pursuant to an amended complaint dated March 5, 2010.   In the first count the plaintiff alleges a cause of action for defamation.   The second count asserts a claim for battery.   The defendant denies these claims in his answer.

The case was tried to the court on January 13, 2011.   The parties presented sworn testimony and a number of exhibits.   At the conclusion of the trial, counsel for the parties submitted post-trial briefs for the courts' consideration.

II. DISCUSSION

A. FACTS

Based on the credible evidence presented, the court finds the following facts to have been proven.   The plaintiff, Keith Murphy is a real estate broker and owner of Rescue Real Estate, LLC d/b/a, Innovative Properties.   The defendant, Paul Rish is also in the real estate business.   He worked for the plaintiff's firm for a period of time.

In 2008, the parties had a business dispute over a real estate commission.   This dispute became very personal and led to the defendant being terminated from his employment at Innovative Properties in May 2008.

In August 2008, the defendant commenced a small claims action against the plaintiff to recover monies for the disputed commission.   On January 26, 2009, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant in the amount of $5,000 plus costs.   The plaintiff had knowledge of the judgment at the time that it was ordered.   The judgment was not satisfied until the defendant obtained a bank execution in April 2009.

On April 16, 2009,¹ the parties both attended a reception at Cafe Ra located at 1163 South Broad Street, Wallingford, Connecticut.   The event was sponsored by People's Bank. It was a business affair, and the parties attended to promote their business interests.

During the course of the event, the defendant inappropriately confronted the plaintiff on two occasions.   These confrontations were driven by the dispute over the real estate commission, the unsatisfied judgment and the defendant's excessive consumption of alcohol beverages.

In the first confrontation, the defendant, in the presence of the plaintiff and other attendees of the party, stated that the plaintiff was a “scumbag,” that “he did not pay anyone” and that he “ripped me off” Thereafter, as the plaintiff was exiting Cafe Ra, the defendant threw a glass of wine on him.

The plaintiff claims that he sustained monetary damages as a result of the events of April 16, 2009, at Cafe Ra. Specifically, he claims that as a result of the defendant's statements, he suffered loss of business from People's Bank. Further, he claims that the wine damaged his clothing.   The plaintiff seeks a judgment in the amount of $10,000.

The court finds that the proven facts demonstrate that the plaintiff did not lose business as a result of the comments, but he did sustain damages as a result of the second incident.

B. APPLICABLE LAW

DEFAMATION

A defamatory statement is defined as a communication that tends to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him ․ To establish a prima facie case of defamation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that:  (1) the defendant published a defamatory statement;  (2) the defamatory statement identified the plaintiff to a third person;  (3) the defamatory statement was published to a third person;  and (4) the plaintiff's reputation suffered injury as a result of the statement.”  (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Cweklinsky v. Mobil Chemical Co., 267 Conn. 210, 217 (2004).

The plaintiff has sustained his burden to prove the first three elements of defamation.   But he has not proven the fourth element, actual damages.   This, however, does not end the inquiry because the court finds that the defamatory statements in question amounted to libel per se.

Libel per se ․ is a libel the defamatory meaning of which is apparent on the face of the statement and is actionable without proof of actual damages ․ When the defamatory words are actionable per se, the law conclusively presumes the existence of injury to the plaintiff's reputation.   He is required neither to plead nor to prove it ․ The individual plaintiff is entitled to recover, as general damages, for the injury to his reputation and for the humiliation and mental suffering which the libel caused him.”  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted).  Lyons v. Nichols, 63 Conn.App. 761, 767-68, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 906 (2001).

The defamatory meaning of the defendant's remarks are clearly apparent on their face and are actionable per se.   The court awards nominal damages in the amount of $10.00.

BATTERY

“An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if (a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and (b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.”   (Internal quotation marks omitted).  Alteiri v. Colasso, 168 Conn. 329, 334 n.3 (1975).

The court finds that the defendant committed battery against the plaintiff on April 16, 2006, when he intentionally threw a cup of wine onto the plaintiff's person and clothing.   The plaintiff was not injured but his clothing was damaged.   The court finds that the plaintiff has proven that his shirt valued at $375.00, pants valued at $250.00 and tee shirt valued at $6.00 were damaged beyond repair.   These are compensable damages for which the court awards a total amount of $631.00.

III. CONCLUSION

Judgment shall enter in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $641.00.

SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

PETER EMMETT WIESE, JUDGE

FOOTNOTES

FN1. This event occurred subsequent to the judgment, but prior to the satisfaction of the judgment by bank execution..  FN1. This event occurred subsequent to the judgment, but prior to the satisfaction of the judgment by bank execution.

Wiese, Peter E., J.