To establish a defamation claim under Massachusetts law, a plaintiff must allege four elements: “1) that the defendant made a statement, concerning the plaintiff, to a third party; 2) that the statement was defamatory such that it could damage the plaintiff's reputation in the community; 3) that the defendant was at fault in making the statement; and 4) that the statement either caused the plaintiff economic loss ... or is actionable without proof of economic loss.” Shay v. Walters, 702 F.3d 76, 81 (1st Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks omitted), citing Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 438 Mass. 627, 629–30, 782 N.E.2d 508 (2003). “Four types of statements are actionable without proof of economic loss: statements that constitute libel ...; statements that charge the plaintiff with a crime; statements that allege the plaintiff has certain diseases; and statements that may prejudice the plaintiff's profession or business.”
"The level of fault required varies between negligence (for statements concerning private persons) and actual malice (for statements concerning public officials and public figures)." Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 438 Mass. 627, 630, 782 N.E.2d 508 (2003). Actual malice means "knowledge that [the statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
The one-trial system took effect gradually, at first applicable only in select counties, and eventually expanded to apply Statewide. See Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky , 438 Mass. 627, 632 n.7, 782 N.E.2d 508 (2003). See also St. 1996, c. 358; St. 2000, c. 142; St. 2002, c. 70; St. 2004, c. 252.
To establish a defamation claim, a plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant made a statement concerning the plaintiff to a third party; (2) that the statement could damage the plaintiff's reputation in the community; (3) that the defendant was at fault in making the statement; and (4) that the statement either caused the plaintiff economic loss or is actionable without proof of economic loss. Shay v. Walters, 702 F.3d 76, 81 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 438 Mass. 627, 629-30, 782 N.E.2d 508 (2003)). 1. Statements Concerning Plaintiffs
(a) [t]he defendant made a statement, concerning the plaintiff, to a third party[;] ... (b) [t]he statement could damage the plaintiff's reputation in the community[;] ... (c) [t]he defendant was at fault in making the statement[;] ... [and] (d) [t]he statement either caused the plaintiff economic loss (traditionally referred to as "special damages" or "special harm"), or is actionable without proof of economic loss. Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky , 438 Mass. 627, 629-630, 782 N.E.2d 508 (2003). A statement "that may prejudice the plaintiff's profession or business" is, as a rule, actionable without proof of economic loss.
As relevant here, slander without economic loss requires a “false imputation of conduct or characteristics incompatible with the proper conduct of the other's lawful business, trade, profession or office.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 573 (Am. L. Inst. 1977); see Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 782 N.E.2d 508, 511 (Mass. 2003).
As relevant here, slander without economic loss requires a "false imputation of conduct or characteristics incompatible with the proper conduct of the other's lawful business, trade, profession or office." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 573 (Am. L. Inst. 1977) ; see Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 438 Mass. 627, 782 N.E.2d 508, 511 (2003). Libel requires that the defamatory statement be published in writing.
To establish a defamation claim under Massachusetts law, a plaintiff must allege four elements: "(1) that the defendant made a statement, concerning the plaintiff, to a third party; (2) that the statement was defamatory such that it could damage the plaintiff's reputation in the community; (3) that the defendant was at fault in making the statement; and (4) that the statement either caused the plaintiff economic loss ... or is actionable without proof of economic loss." Shay v. Walters, 702 F.3d 76, 81 (1st Cir.2012) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (citing Ravnikar v. Bogojavlens k y, 438 Mass. 627, 782 N.E.2d 508, 510–11 (2003) ). "Four types of statements are actionable without proof of economic loss: statements that constitute libel; statements that charge the plaintiff with a crime; statements that allege the plaintiff has certain diseases; and statements that may prejudice the plaintiff's profession or business." Ravnikar, 782 N.E.2d at 511 (internal citations omitted).
In order to maintain an action for defamation under Massachusetts law, a non-public figure such as the plaintiff must allege facts to show that (1) the defendant made a statement "of and concerning" the plaintiff to a third party; (2) the statement was defamatory, meaning it could damage the plaintiff's reputation in the community; (3) defendant was at fault in making the statement; and (4) the statement either caused the plaintiff economic loss, or is actionable without proof of economic loss. See Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 438 Mass. 627, 629-630 (2003); see also Yohe v. Nugent, 321 F.3d 35, 40 (1st Cir. 2003). In most cases, the statement must be false.
We are persuaded that Ashok has done so, as Hampton had no reasonable expectation of proving his case. See Ravnikar v. Bogojavlensky, 438 Mass. 627, 629 (2003).In order for his fraud claim to succeed, Hampton "must prove ‘that the defendant made a false representation of a material fact with knowledge of its falsity for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to act thereon, and that the plaintiff relied upon the representation as true and acted upon it to his damage.