## Facts

- The Globe published an investigative article about private vocational training titled “Dead-end trip on rattletrap trucks.”
- The article described a “New England Tractor-Trailer School,” using names closely resembling “New England Tractor-Trailer Training,” without specifying the state where the school operated.
- The article quoted “Arlan Greenberg,” identified as “N.E. Tractor president.”
- The article asserted the school used unqualified instructors and unsafe trucks and was the subject of governmental investigations.
- New England Tractor-Trailer Training of Connecticut, Inc. (a Connecticut truck-driver training school) alleged readers understood the article to refer to its business and that the statements were false and defamatory.
- The plaintiff offered evidence that, before publication, the Globe had been alerted to the existence of the similarly named Connecticut corporation but did not clarify which entity was being discussed.
- The plaintiff claimed reputational and business harm from the publication.

## Issues

1. Whether a jury could reasonably find the publication was “of and concerning” the Connecticut corporation, even though the article did not identify the plaintiff by full name or specify a location.
2. Whether the record raised a genuine issue of material fact that the Globe acted negligently, as required for private-figure defamation under Massachusetts law.
3. Whether summary judgment was improper where identification and fault depended on fact questions about reader understanding and reasonable publishing care.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Appeals Court’s reversal of summary judgment for the Globe.
- The court held the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence for a jury to find the article could reasonably be understood to refer to the plaintiff (“of and concerning”).
- The court held the plaintiff’s evidence, including notice to the Globe of the like-named Connecticut corporation, created a triable issue on negligence.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, including trial, on the plaintiff’s defamation claim.

## Legal Principles

- A defamation plaintiff must show the challenged communication is “of and concerning” the plaintiff, meaning a reasonable reader could understand it to refer to the plaintiff.
- The “of and concerning” determination is ordinarily for the jury unless no reasonable factfinder could find identification on the record.
- For a private-figure plaintiff, Massachusetts law generally requires proof of negligence: failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid publishing a defamatory falsehood that could reasonably be understood as referring to the plaintiff.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate where the record, viewed favorably to the nonmoving party, presents genuine disputes of material fact on identification and negligence.

## Conclusion

Because a reasonable jury could find the Globe’s article referred to the plaintiff and that the Globe was negligent in failing to avoid confusion after being alerted to a similarly named entity, the court held summary judgment was improper and returned the case for trial.


New England Tractor-Trailer Training of Conn., Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co., 395 Mass. 471, 480 N.E.2d 1005 (Mass. 1985)