Court rules for newspaper review

Friday, Nov. 8, 2002 | 9:56 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Thursday that newspaper reviews of restaurants are generally exempt from defamation suits because they are merely opinions and the business is considered a public accommodation.

Even if there are questionable facts in the reviews, the court said, the articles must be read as a whole in determining if they are defamatory.

The ruling, written by Justice Nancy Becker, upheld a pretrial judgment in favor of the Reno Gazette-Journal, which was sued by David and Beverly Pegasus, owners of Salsa Dave's restaurant in Reno.

Reporter Stacey Ferrante wrote an unfavorable review of the Mexican restaurant, suggesting the food was canned or packaged. She wrote that she saw a can of beans in the kitchen as she was paying her bill.

The owners asked for a retraction, claiming the facts were wrong. The newspaper printed their letter but did not make a retraction. The Pegasuses maintained their food was fresh and that the canned or packaged items were on hand only to be used in an emergency.

The couple filed suit, claiming the review contained defamatory false factual statements and not protected opinion.

District Judge Brent Adams granted the newspaper a pretrial summary judgment stating the review was only an opinion, that the business was a public figure for the limited purpose of a food review and that the Pegasuses failed to prove malice on the part of the Reno Gazette-Journal.

Becker wrote, "Statements of opinion cannot be defamatory because there is no such thing as a false idea ... only assertions of fact, not opinion, can be defamatory."