## Facts

- Audrey G. Menefee, a community member with a strong reputation, wrote a newspaper column and taught psychology part-time.
- Winnifred R. Codman, a prominent local resident known for public commentary, authored three separate written publications about Menefee.
- Menefee sued Codman for libel on three counts, each based on a different publication.
- Count I referenced Menefee as “plain Audrey,” called her “Narcissus,” and directed readers to “hunt up your psychology textbooks,” while also questioning her qualifications to advise others and run a rural newspaper.
- Count II discussed “Plain Audrey’s Trip to Europe,” referred to “local yokel comment,” speculated about the “real reason” for the trip, and stated that Menefee’s “water front ‘coverage’ will intrigue us.”
- Count III again used “covering the waterfront” in connection with Menefee; Menefee asserted the phrasing and surrounding context implied sexual misconduct, supported by dictionary evidence and testimony about how readers understood the writing.
- The jury found for Menefee on Count I and awarded damages including exemplary damages; it found for Codman on Counts II and III.
- The trial court entered judgment for Menefee on Count I and granted Menefee a new trial on Counts II and III.
- Codman appealed both the Count I judgment and the new-trial order.

## Issues

1. Whether the Count I publication was reasonably susceptible to a defamatory meaning that could support liability (including as an attack on Menefee’s professional fitness).
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial on Counts II and III based on the claimed defamatory sexual implications of the publications.
3. How courts and juries allocate responsibility for interpreting ambiguous or double-meaning language in libel actions.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Menefee on Count I, including exemplary damages.
- The appellate court affirmed the order granting a new trial on Counts II and III.
- The court held the challenged language was reasonably susceptible to the defamatory meanings alleged, making the matter properly one for jury determination (and supporting the trial court’s new-trial ruling where the defense verdicts were set aside).

## Legal Principles

- The court first determines whether the words are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning; if so, the jury decides whether the audience actually understood them in that defamatory sense and whether they were defamatory as to the plaintiff.
- Statements may be actionable where ridicule or “opinion” conveys an attack on professional competence or community standing, when the natural and probable effect on an ordinary reader supports that meaning.
- Language with an innocent meaning and a defamatory meaning may support liability if the defamatory interpretation is reasonable in context and is shown to have been adopted by readers.
- Context and surrounding circumstances may be considered in evaluating meaning, including extrinsic evidence offered to show how recipients understood allegedly innuendo-laden language.
- A libel award may include exemplary damages where the evidence permits an inference of malice (e.g., ill will or reckless disregard for the plaintiff’s rights).

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld liability and exemplary damages on Count I because the “Narcissus” and psychology-textbook references could reasonably be read as impugning Menefee’s professional fitness and reputation, and it upheld a new trial on Counts II and III because the disputed “waterfront” and “covering the waterfront” language, in context and with supporting evidence of audience understanding, could reasonably be construed as defamatory.


Menefee v. Codman, 155 Cal. App. 2d 396, 317 P.2d 1032 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)