Opinion
No. CV-96-0566674
September 18, 1998
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
The plaintiff in the present case seeks damages for an alleged libelous statement which was published in the Hartford Courant. Initially the Hartford Courant and its reporter were defendants but withdrawals were filed during this litigation. The remaining defendant, Douglas Rankin, a former Glastonbury police officer, appeared but was subsequently defaulted for failure to plead.
The statement attributed to the defendant Douglas Rankin, is "[t]o most people, he's as crazy as a loon. He can't relate to people except to criticize and file lawsuits. He's a social hermit."
In Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., 188 Conn. 107, 438 A.2d 1317 (1982), our Supreme Court reviewed the evolution of the law of libel from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964) and discussed the privilege of "fair comment" as it applies to public figures.
The plaintiff, herein, has been deemed to be a public figure; see C.J. Mozzochi, Ph. D. v. James Hallas, Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, No. 95-0556163 (January 5, 1998, Rittenband, J.) The Supreme Court held that "in order for a statement to be defended as fair comment it must be recognizable by the ordinary reasonable person as opinion and not as a statement of fact". Goodrich v. Waterbury Republican-American, Inc., supra. 188 Conn. 121.
Mr. Mozzochi testified that the statements were totally false and that they caused him embarrassment. He stated that he was not "crazy as a loon" but that he was a research analyst and that he was not "a social hermit" as he had recently hosted a dinner party.
This court notes that the phrase "crazy as a loon" generally cannot be considered to be a statement of fact and does fall under the fair comment category. Moreover, in terms of the statement that the plaintiff "file(s) lawsuits," this court takes judicial notice of the litigation that the plaintiff has instituted.
A list of cases includes:
Mozzochi v. Glastonbury, 188 Conn. 276 (1982) (dismissing appeal challenging town's adoption of charter revision)
Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490 (1987) (affirming trial court's decision to strike complaint alleging abuse of process)
Mozzochi v. Freedom of Information Commission, 44 Conn. App. 463 (1997) (affirming trial court's dismissal of four appeals brought by Mozzochi and enjoining him from bringing further frivolous appeals pursuant to General Statutes §§ 1-21(b) and 1-211)
Mozzochi v. Hallas, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford. Docket No. CV 95-0556163 (January 6, 1998, Rittenband, J.) (judgment for defendants, local newspaper and its publisher, in suit for defamation)
Mozzochi v. Rogers, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. CV93-0526635 (September 22, 1995, Corradino, J.) (holding plaintiff's suit for vexatious litigation against town attorney's for motions filed during administrative appeal premature because appeal still pending)
Mozzochi v. Rogers, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. CV93-0527773 (September 25, 1995, Corradino, J.) (same)
Mozzochi v. Pearlman, Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. CV93-0526785 (December 14, 1993, Allen, J.) (summary judgment for defendant in suit for defamation for comments made concerning federal lawsuit filed by Mozzochi)
It is clear that "the result of an entry of a default . . . is that liability is conclusively presumed. . . . Therefore, [a] plaintiff [is] relieved of any obligation to prove the allegations of the complaint except as to damages." (Citations omitted.) Carothers v. Butkin Precision Manufacturing Co., 37 Conn. App. 208, 209 655 A.2d 799 (1995). Nevertheless, other than that stated above, the plaintiff did not provide this court with any testimony as to damages.
Accordingly, as the plaintiff's evidence on damages is lacking and as damages must be awarded only because of the technical default, see Carothers v. Butkin Precision, supra, 37 Conn. App. 208, this court awards nominal damages of one dollar.
Berger, J.