## Facts

- A daily newspaper published an engagement announcement stating that Robert W. Hinsdale was engaged to Concetta Kay Rieber.
- The announcement was false; both Hinsdale and Rieber were married to other people and had children.
- The plaintiffs alleged the newspaper circulated in their communities, where their marital status was generally known.
- Hinsdale alleged the publication exposed him to public disgrace, scorn, and ridicule.
- The Riebers alleged reputational harm to Mrs. Rieber, emotional and physical suffering, and derivative loss-of-services damages to Mr. Rieber.
- Neither complaint pleaded special damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a false newspaper engagement announcement between two persons who are in fact married to others is libelous per se, permitting recovery without pleading special damages.
2. Whether a court may consider extrinsic facts generally known in the community (such as plaintiffs’ marital status) when deciding if a publication is defamatory on its face.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the dismissals and reinstated both actions.
- The court held the complaints sufficiently alleged libel per se.
- The court ruled that, as understood by ordinary readers aware that both individuals were married, the publication naturally imputed a violation of marital morality and subjected the parties to disgrace and ridicule.
- The court rejected the lower courts’ view that reliance on community-known facts necessarily converts the claim into libel per quod requiring special damages.

## Legal Principles

- A statement is libelous per se if, under ordinary community understanding, it tends to expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, without requiring proof of special damages.
- In deciding whether words are libelous per se, a court may consider extrinsic facts that are generally known to a substantial number of people in the plaintiff’s community to determine how the publication would be understood.
- Community context may be used to interpret the natural and probable meaning of the publication; it cannot be used to impose a defamatory meaning through strained innuendo.
- A false publication suggesting that married persons are engaged to marry each other can, in context, impute immoral conduct and support a per se defamation claim.

## Conclusion

The court held that a false engagement announcement naming two persons who were known in their community to be married to others could be treated as libel per se because it naturally conveyed an imputation of marital infidelity or intent to abandon existing marriages, allowing the actions to proceed without allegations of special damages.


Hinsdale v. Orange Cnty. Publs., Inc., 17 N.Y.2d 284 (1966)