Defamation
Libel v. Slander
Libel = written publication of false fact
Slander = oral articulation of false fact
appropriating one's name likeness or identity for commercial use
- no permission
- used part of identity
- for benefit of defendant
Defenses: news, commentary, creative works
Appropriation of P's name or likeness
- Accurate reports about public proceedings
- Statements in the public’s interest
- D reasonably believed the publication was necessary to protect an important interest
- Employment privilege: Business reason to know or share something.
Qualified Privilege
Fraud
An intentional misrepresentation of fact inducing the P to reasonably detrimentally rely
Intrafamily Immunity
CL: Children cant sue parents
Defamation
Publication of false fact that causes damage to P's reputation
False Light
highly offensive and unreasonable publicity that puts someone in false light
Requires actual malice + showing to large # of ppl
don't use this, use defamation
- P gives consent
- Judicial proceedings
- Statements made by members of congress/executive officials as part of their job
- Any statement made between husband and wife
- Person who is required by law (like being under oath)
Absolute Privilege
Inducement of Breach of K
When a 3rd party tortfeasor is aware of an existing K but gets someone to come and K with them anyway improperly interfering and inducing breach
-valid K
-knowledge of k
- intentional acts to induce
-breach
-damage
Qualified Immunity
Protects public officials from liability from actions not protected by statutes or constitutional rights
Per se
Statements so harmful to reputation that damages are presumed.
- Commission of a criminal offense
- Infection with a venereal disease
- Integrity in the discharge of duties of public office
- Adultery
- Words that prejudice the party in his trade, profession, or business
If the statement might reasonably be interpreted to refer to someone else it will not be actionable per se.
Public Disclosure of Embarrassing Private Facts
Giving publicity to highly offensive things in someone's underwear drawer that are of no concern to the public
- disclosed fact was private
- that was publicly disclosed
- the disclosed facts were offensive to a reasonable person
Defenses: Public record, consent, legitimate public interest
Private v Private over a private matter
Defamation per se or per quod
An unfair business practice that interferes with existing business relationship using unlawful means
-economic relationship
-knowledge of relationship
-intentional acts to disrupt relationship
-actual disruption of relationship
-economic harm
Intentional Interference with prospective advantage
Charitable Immunity
CL: cant sue a charity MM: can sue a charity for nuisance or negligence
Per Quod
Requires facts to show defamation and requires proof of harm to reputation
Intrusion upon seclusion
An intentional, substantial intrusion into private matters that would highly offend a reasonable person and that discloses information that would shame, humiliate, or mentally distress a person of ordinary sensibilities
- show intrusion
- that would not be made through the normal inquiry or observation
Private v. Private over a public matter
Private v. Media
P must prove harm to reputation OR actual malice
- if P shows D was negligent they have to prove harm to reputation
- if P shows D acted with actual malice, harm is presumed
Intentional act of causing detriment to another business without just cause or excuse
Unauthorized interference with legitimate business at point where profits are made
Unfair competition
Municipal Immunity
Cannot sue the government when they are acting as the government
Opinion
Theory
Interpretation
Parody
True Fact
Privileged material
Not published
Defenses to defamation
Public P v. anyone over anything
P MUST prove actual malice and if so harm will be presumed
damage to a contractual relationship causing economic harm preventing the party from upholding its contractual duties
Negligent Interference with Economic Relationships
Sovereign Immunity
CL: You can't sue the king so you can't sue the U.S. govt
MM: Federal Torts Claim Act deeming govt to be like private business that can be sued as such however
- can't get punitive damages from govt
- can't sue govt for discretionary functions