## Facts

- A newspaper column published in Rhode Island papers ended with a question implying that “a Bellingham cop” locked himself and a female companion in a police cruiser at a sandpit and had to radio for help.
- The reference identified no officer by name and accused only an unspecified single officer.
- All 21 members of the Bellingham, Massachusetts police department sued the publisher, columnist, and editor for libel, each seeking individual damages for alleged reputational and personal harm.
- In a federal diversity action, the district court assumed the statement could be defamatory if it referred to a particular individual, but ruled it did not sufficiently identify any plaintiff and dismissed for failure to state a claim.

## Issues

1. Whether a publication referring only to “a” unnamed officer in a 21-member police department can reasonably be understood as “of and concerning” each officer, permitting each to sue for libel.
2. Whether the “of and concerning” element in group-defamation cases may be decided as a matter of law on a motion to dismiss when no reasonable reader could identify a particular plaintiff.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
- Massachusetts substantive law applied as the state of publication and of plaintiffs’ domicile and employment; lacking direct state authority, the court applied general common-law group-defamation principles.
- The court held that the column’s reference to an unspecified single “Bellingham cop” could not reasonably be understood to refer to each of the 21 officers.
- The court did not decide whether the statement was otherwise defamatory because the identification requirement was not met.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff in a defamation action must show the publication is “of and concerning” the plaintiff; in group-libel cases, this requires a reasonable basis for readers to connect the statement to the individual.
- Defamation of a group generally does not give an individual member a claim unless the statement, in context, reasonably points to that member (or the group is so small and the charge so inclusive that identification is reasonable).
- Although identification is often a fact question, a court may resolve it as a matter of law when no reasonable jury could find the statement refers to the plaintiff.
- In assessing group defamation, courts consider group size and the specificity of the accusation (e.g., “all” or “most” versus an unspecified “one”).

## Conclusion

Because the publication accused only an unnamed single officer within a 21-member department and provided no identifying details, it was not reasonably “of and concerning” each plaintiff; the officers’ individual libel claims were properly dismissed.


Arcand v. Evening Call Publ'g Co., 567 F.2d 1163 (1st Cir. 1977)