Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Pipkin, Judge. A jury returned a general verdict in favor of Appellees James Lowery and Ortiz Custom Guns, LLC., finding Appellants Virgil A. Grace, Patricia A. Grace, and Uniforms by Patrick, Inc., liable for damages arising after Appellees unwittingly purchased stolen guns from Appellants’ employee. On appeal, Appellants assert, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. We agree that at least one of Appellees’ claims — defamation — was improperly submitted to the jury; accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial. Virgil A. Grace and his wife, Patricia Grace, owned and operated “Uniforms by Patrick,” a business that, as the name implies, largely sold uniforms; however, the business also sold firearms and had a gun range. In 2013, Virgil hired Christopher Edgecombe. Edgecombe eventually became gun range manager and master at Uniforms by Patrick, which meant that he “oversaw everything on the firearms side” of the business. In June 2013, Edgecombe began selling firearms to James Lowery, a representative of a smaller firearms operations known as Ortiz Custom Guns.[1] In the nearly five months that followed, Edgecombe sold dozens of firearms to Ortiz Custom Guns, either through Lowery or other Ortiz representatives. Unbeknownst to Ortiz Custom Guns, its representatives, or Uniforms by Patrick, Edgecombe was pocketing the proceeds of those firearms sales, and, it turned out, was a convicted felon who was prohibited from dealing in firearms.[2] The Graces eventually uncovered Edgecombe’s misdeeds and confronted him; Edgecombe was arrested for theft, and all of the guns Edgecombe sold to Ortiz Custom Guns were reported stolen. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) became involved in the matter, and the ATF seized firearms from both Ortiz Custom Guns and from Ortiz’s customers .[3] A local news station picked up the story and published details of the affair, including a statement by local law enforcement suggesting that Ortiz Custom Guns was complicit in Edgecombe’s misdeeds. Ortiz Custom Guns also learned that the Graces had been making disparaging comments about Ortiz Custom Guns and its involvement with Edgecombe. Appellees subsequently brought this action against Appellants alleging, among other things, defamation, negligent hiring and retention of Edgecombe, and false light invasion of privacy. At trial, the jury was charged on numerous claims and returned a general verdict in favor of Appellees. The jury found Appellants liable for almost $3 million in damages and attorney fees.[4] Appellants now argue on appeal, among other things,[5] that Appellees’ defamation claim was improperly submitted to the jury because there was no evidence of any specific defamatory statement of fact.[6] We agree. In their amended complaint, Appellees alleged that the Graces “made multiple statements in front of customers and employees [of Uniforms by Patrick] that implied that both Ortiz Custom Guns and its manager [Lowery] engaged in ‘illegal activity,’ including but not limited to unlawful firearms trading with [Edgecombe].” To prove their claim of defamation, Appellees were required to show the following: “(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party; (3) fault by the defendant amounting at least to negligence; and (4) special harm or the actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm.” Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Pardue, 310 Ga. App. 355, 356 (1) (713 SE2d 456) (2011). “[T]he defamatory statement must be published,” and “[a] plaintiff cannot prove publication without introducing evidence of the specific statement used in an allegedly defamatory communication.” (Citations omitted.) Lewis v. Meredith Corp., 293 Ga. App. 747, 748-749 (1) (667 SE2d 716) (2008). In reviewing this claim, we look only to see whether there is “any evidence” to support it. See Aldworth Co., Inc. v. England, 281 Ga. 197, 201 (2) (637 SE2d 198) (2006). While Appellees claim that Appellants engaged in a “a campaign of defamatory comments and slanderous allegations against Appellees” and were “making allegations that Appellees knew of Edgecombe’s devious dealings and were willfully complicit in his criminal enterprise,” Appellees have wholly failed to identify any specific statements which would support a claim of defamation, and they have failed to cite any meaningful case law supporting their position that the evidence was sufficient to support a claim of defamation. A review of the transcript reflects that a former employee at Uniforms by Patrick testified that “[c]onversations were had, in the open, about firearms being stolen or Ortiz Customs buying stolen firearms. Exact conversations, I couldn’t give you.” (Emphasis supplied.) In fact, this employee repeatedly testified that, although the Graces had allegedly made derogatory comments about Ortiz Custom Guns, he could not recall exact statements. This vague testimony, which fails to identify any particular words or statements made by Appellants, affords no basis for recovery. See ITT Rayonier, Inc. v. McLaney, 204 Ga. App. 762, 765 (2) (420 SE2d 610) (1992). Likewise, while the jury heard that Patricia Grace had been overheard saying, “Once we’re done with them, they’ll be out of business,” this mere statement of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole is not actionable. “An opinion can constitute actionable defamation if the opinion can reasonably be interpreted, according to the context of the entire writing in which the opinion appears, to state or imply defamatory facts about the plaintiff that are capable of being proved false.” See Gast v. Brittain, 277 Ga. 340, 341 (589 SE2d 63) (2003). At most, Patricia’s statement “implies that [Appellants] ha[d] a negative opinion of [Appellees], but it is too far of a stretch to interpret the [statement] as implying ‘defamatory facts’ about [Appellees.]” Chaney v. Harrison & Lynam, LLC, 308 Ga. App. 808, 811-812 (1) (a) (708 SE2d 672) (2011) (yard sign stating “Ask our opinion why not to buy a Harrison & Lynam Home” not actionable as defamation). Swanson Towing & Recovery, LLC v. Wrecker 1, Inc., 342 Ga. App. 6, 11 (2) (a) (802 SE2d 300) (2017) (no action for defamation where representative of one towing business wrote that the owners of a competing towing business had no morals and were “mean, vulgar, and demeaning crooks” (punctuation omitted)). Accordingly, there was no evidence supporting Appellees’ claim of defamation, and it was error for the jury to consider the claim. As discussed above, the jury considered numerous claims and returned only a general verdict. Where, as here, a case is submitted to the jury on various claims, and the jury returns a general verdict such that we cannot determine on which basis the verdict was entered, the verdict cannot stand. Southeastern Pain Specialists, P.C. v. Brown, 303 Ga. 265, 273 (2) (b) (811 SE2d 360) (2018); Godwin v. Godwin, 265 Ga. 891, 892 (1) (463 SE2d 685) (1995). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for a new trial.[7] Judgment reversed and case remanded. Miller, P. J., and Hodges, J., concur.

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

Premium Subscription

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now

Team Accounts

Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now

Bundle Subscriptions

Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now

General Counsel Conference East 2021

September 22, 2021 - September 23, 2021
New York, NY

GCC East addresses General Counsel trends in regulatory, data protection, tech management, legal operations, and leadership.


New Jersey Legal Awards 2021

September 23, 2021
Virtual, NJ

New Jersey Law Journal honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in New Jersey with their dedication to the profession.


Women Influence & Power in Law Awards 2021

October 07, 2021
Washington, DC

Women Influence & Power in Law Awards honors women lawyers who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession.



Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Our client, a publicly-traded, communication software company, has engaged us to identify a Corporate Counsel for their North American legal...

Apply Now ›


Cheshire, Connecticut, United States

Mid-size law firm focused on Insurance Defense is seeking a highly personable, highly motivated litigation attorney to join the general liti...

Apply Now ›

Senior Legal Counsel

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

ANSYS, Inc. (www.ansys.com), a publicly-traded global leader in engineering simulation, has retained Carpenter Legal Search, Inc. (“CL...

Apply Now ›



JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS mourn the passing of our Co-Founding Partner, collegue, and friend.

View Announcement ›



Barton Gilman Expands Into Connecticut

View Announcement ›



Barton Gilman LLP is excited to announce that its expansion into Philadelphia

View Announcement ›