## Facts

- Elke Sommer, a German-born actress with an international career, sued Zsa Zsa Gabor and Frederic von Anhalt for defamatory statements made to German media about Sommer’s finances, lifestyle, age, and appearance.
- A German weekly magazine with limited but present circulation in Southern California published an article attributing to Gabor statements that Sommer was “broke,” had sold her Hollywood house, lived in a bad area, frequented “sleazy bars,” sold sweaters for money, and was socially shunned.
- A journalist testified she interviewed Gabor and von Anhalt in German and heard the statements about Sommer during the conversation.
- A later German newspaper article attributed to von Anhalt statements that Sommer could not afford a $500 charity ticket, had unpaid bills, lied about her age, looked extremely old, and had little or no hair.
- Sommer presented evidence disputing the statements, including that she owned assets and property and that the reported depiction of her condition was false.
- Sommer testified the publications caused her emotional distress, including loss of sleep.
- Sommer’s mother, who handled fan mail, testified that fans sent letters offering financial help based on the publications; evidence about the mother’s distress and the fan reactions was admitted.

## Issues

1. Whether California or German defamation law governed statements made to German media and published abroad but distributed in California.
2. Whether the jury instructions on defamation, malice, and damages contained reversible error.
3. Whether evidence concerning Sommer’s mother’s distress and related fan mail was improperly admitted and prejudicial.
4. Whether the challenged statements were nonactionable opinion rather than provably false assertions of fact.
5. Whether the compensatory and punitive damage awards were legally excessive.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Sommer.
- California defamation law applied under California’s governmental-interest/comparative-impairment conflicts analysis.
- The jury instructions, viewed as a whole, did not misstate the law or prejudice defendants.
- Admission of the mother-related evidence was within the trial court’s discretion and, in any event, not reversible error.
- The statements were actionable because they conveyed verifiable factual assertions in context rather than protected opinion.
- The general and punitive damages awards were supported by the evidence, including the malice finding, and were not excessive as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- In multistate defamation disputes, California applies a governmental-interest/comparative-impairment approach; California law may govern where California has a strong interest in protecting the reputation of a California-based plaintiff and the publication is distributed in California.
- Statements that imply specific, verifiable facts about a person’s financial condition, social standing, age, or appearance may be actionable defamation when a reasonable audience would understand them as factual assertions, even if phrased with insulting rhetoric.
- A defamation plaintiff may recover general damages for reputational and emotional harm; punitive damages may be awarded upon a finding of malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth).
- Evidence concerning third-party reactions and related circumstances may be admissible to show extent of publication, how the statements were understood, and the impact on the plaintiff; evidentiary error warrants reversal only if prejudicial.
- Appellate review of instructional error considers the charge as a whole; reversal requires a reasonable probability of a different result absent the error.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a substantial defamation judgment for Sommer, holding that California law applied, the publications conveyed actionable factual assertions, the challenged evidence and instructions did not justify reversal, and the compensatory and punitive awards were supported by the record and the jury’s malice finding.


Sommer v. Gabor, 40 Cal. App. 4th 1455, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 235 (Ct. App. 1995)