Grant v Readers Digest

Common Law COA for Defamation:

COA for libel (slander requires the addition of damages)
1. Defamatory utterance?
a. The P must show the exact statements or a degree of
specificity they cannot quote or approximate
b. At common law the P doesnt have to show that the words
were false- the D has the burden of proof of showing that the
statements were in fact true
c. The court decides whether the utterance is defamatory
d. Juries decide the meaning of the utterance
i. It can be defamatory or not
ii. Its up to the jury to decide whether under the
circumstances the utterance is defamatory
iii. They decide whether its defamatory to the reasonable
person
2. Colloquium
a. The statement was of and concerning the P
3. Publication
a. Must be stated/ uttered to at least one other person other
than the P
i. If only the P hears it can be IIED but not defamation
The P doesnt have to prove that the statements were false
o To remove liability theres a burden on the D to prove that
the statements were false
Theres no necessity of a showing for damages
o At common law damages and falsity are assumed
Killian v Doubleday
Facts:
The D published an article alleging that P represented the Communist
Party in Massachusetts. P brought a libel suit claiming that the article
was untrue and malicious and his reputation was damaged.
Issue:
What the jury might attribute to the words and was the meaning
libelous
Holding:
It is not necessary that the majority of people would find an article to
be damaging to Plaintiffs reputation so long as some people would
reasonably find in damaging.
Where the D could prove that the statements were
substantially true, that is an absolute defense of
defamation and the suit is thrown out

o The reason for this is bc we want to know the truth

o If you dont meet the standard for defamation:
Shift tort to IIED
Pursue criminal libel
The law protects people from inaccurate utterances that tend to
lower their accurate, real, or true reputation
The greater the truth the greater the libel
Seditious libel- truth is not a defense to statements about the
government
o Here, the truth is worse than if the statement would be a
lie
Shore v Billingsley
Facts:
A person on a TV program mimed the unscripted words I wish I had as
much $ as the P owes to X.
Defamation falls into two main categories:
o Libel- written statements
o Slander- spoken statements (can include gestures or
mimes)
So if the remark is a non-scripted, defamatory remark on a radio
or TV show:
o Slander- no script, it was oral
The court here held that it was libel b/c written
defamation has a more serous affect than mere
words but here there was a similarity to written
statements b/c when its on TV the scope of the
audience is just as great as a written paper. TV, like
written, lives on forever.
Slander doesnt have the mass audience affect
that TV and written statements have b/c once
spoken it disappears into thin air
Terwilliger v Wands (slander)
Facts:
P and D were neighbors. D said that the P was going to this womans
house to sleep with her and the D was purposely keeping her husband
in jail to continue seeing her. P pleaded slander and physical sickness.
The case was thrown out b/c him throwing up is not a sign that
his reputation has been damaged.
o You can show loss of reputation, profits, job to show
damages
In slander, you need to show DAMAGES; not in libel
Therefore, the media wants their standard to be slander

o If a woman alleges a defamatory remark about her

sexuality, she doesnt have to show damages.
COA for slander
1. Defamatory utterance?
b. The P must show the exact statements or a degree of
specificity they cannot quote or approximate
c. At common law the P doesnt have to show that the words
were false- the D has the burden of proof of showing that the
statements were in fact true
d. The court decides whether the utterance is defamatory
e. Juries decide the meaning of the utterance
i. It can be defamatory or not
ii. Its up to the jury to decide whether under the
circumstances the utterance is defamatory
iii. They decide whether its defamatory to the reasonable
person
2. Colloquium
f. The statement was of and concerning the P
3. Publication
g. Must be stated/ uttered to at least one other person other
than the P
i. If only the P hears it can be IIED but not defamation
The P doesnt have to prove that the statements were false
o To remove liability theres a burden on the D to prove that
the statements were false
4. Damages
Slander Per Se
If a person is in one of these four categories is slandered, they
dont have to show damages
o Sexual immorality- only for women
o Imputations of major crime
o Loathsome disease
o Business trade, profession, or office
Libel Per Quad
The P has to add in outside info to show a remark that isnt
usually defamatory really is.
o Ex) this butcher sells pork- by him adding in that hes
kosher, that restores the libel component.
Colloquium
The P must show that the statement was obviously or apparently
of and about him

Economopoulous v Pollard
Facts:
A clerk of the D told the D in English that the P had stolen (slander per
se) a handkerchief. The P spoke Greek, so a Greek clerk told the P the
same thing in Greek. No evidence showed that any third person heard
the charge except the floorwalker (considered an agent of the D).
Holding:
To maintain a defamation cause, publication of the defamatory
statement must occur to some one other than the person defamed.
Here the P was the only person who understood the remarks b/c
they were in Greek so its not actionable.
A statement made in front of husband and wife isnt publication b/c
theyre considered one unit.
NY Times Co. v Sullivan
Altered the CL definition of defamation:
o
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Facts:
P alleged that he was defamed in a full-page ad taken out in the NYT.
The ad alleged that officials did many horrible things during the civil
rights movement.
Difference b/w this case and Killian:
Sullivan isnt mentioned in the ad
o Was the utterance really a colloquium about the P?
The P didnt produce sufficient evidence to show that
the statements were really about him.
Holding:
In a libel action brought by a public official, the P must show malice in
addition to all the other elements of defamation in order to recover.
Malice:
o Knowledge that the statement was false
o Reckless disregard for the truth/ falsity of what was said
This is a 1st amendment issue b/c people in a free society should
be given a certain amount of wiggle room in discussing peoples

opinions of public officials.

o Abridging this would impinge on the basic 1 st amendment
right
o The courts dont want us to be worried that s/o will sue you
if you get one thing wrong in regards to a public official
The NYT rule was extended to not just public officials but public
figures as well