👀
Torts • Defamation
TORT#098
Legal Definition
If the statement is made without malice, and within the scope of the privilege, a speaker may have a qualified privilege for: (1) reports of official proceedings, (2) statements in the publisher’s interest (e.g., defense of one’s actions, property, or reputation), (3) statements in the recipient’s interest (e.g., employment recommendations), and (4) statements in the common interest of the publisher and recipient.
Plain English Explanation
A qualified privilege exists in cases where the person making the statement has a legal, moral, or social duty to make it. Journalists commonly make use of this privilege, as it protects them from defamation claims as long as their reports are made in good faith, believing them to be true, and without any malice. In other words, where a person may be able to help someone else by saying something, and they genuinely believe that saying something will provide help, they may be protected from a defamation claim under qualified privilege.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Sam owns a taxi service. Bob hates Sam. One day, as a couple of passengers are getting in his cab, Bob walks by and yells, "Careful! Sam always drives drunk." Sam never drinks alcohol. Result: Bob may be sued for defamation, because he wasn't trying to help anyone, he was just being an asshole to Sam.
Hypo 2: Bob decides to start his own taxi service. One day, while heading to his cab, Bob stops to speak with Amy. Bob smells like alcohol and is slurring his speech. Amy isn't aware, but Bob recently had a tooth taken out and, earlier, someone spilled a beer on Bob. As Bob gets in his car, two passengers arrive. Amy yells out, "Don't get in that cab! He's drunk!" Result: Even though Bob wasn't drunk, Amy believed he was based on the circumstances. She could have chosen to say nothing, but she felt compelled to warn the two passengers of what she genuinely believed to be a dangerous situation. If Bob sues her for defamation, Amy will be able to defend against the suit under qualified privilege.
Hypo 2: Bob decides to start his own taxi service. One day, while heading to his cab, Bob stops to speak with Amy. Bob smells like alcohol and is slurring his speech. Amy isn't aware, but Bob recently had a tooth taken out and, earlier, someone spilled a beer on Bob. As Bob gets in his car, two passengers arrive. Amy yells out, "Don't get in that cab! He's drunk!" Result: Even though Bob wasn't drunk, Amy believed he was based on the circumstances. She could have chosen to say nothing, but she felt compelled to warn the two passengers of what she genuinely believed to be a dangerous situation. If Bob sues her for defamation, Amy will be able to defend against the suit under qualified privilege.
Related Concepts
In assessing a defamation claim, what is actual malice?
In assessing a defamation claim, what must a plaintiff prove when a statement is a matter of public concern?
In assessing a defamation claim, what must a plaintiff prove when the issue is a matter of private concern?
In assessing a defamation claim, what must a plaintiff prove when they are a private person and the statement is a matter of public concern?
In assessing a defamation claim, what must a plaintiff prove when they are a public official or figure?
What is defamation?
What is libel?
What is libel per quod?
What is slander?
What is slander per se?
What may be used as defenses to a defamation claim?
When is absolute privilege a defense to defamation?
When is consent a defense to defamation?
When is truth a defense to defamation?
