Leonardo Angiulo: What You Need About Defamation Suits
Monday, October 29, 2012
Leonardo Angiulo, GoLocalWorcester Legal Expert
A case, McKee v. Laurion, recently went to the Minnesota Supreme Court on this very topic. According to the trial court documents, available here, some family members of a medical patient were dissatisfied with a certain doctor's bedside manner. After their experience they reported their characterizations of the doctor's behavior as well as the opinion of a third party who described the doctor as “a real tool!” Please note, the exclamation point comes from the court filings and it's not mine. It is, however, hilarious because we just don't get a lot of slang in cases that get national press coverage.
Long story short, the trial court ruled that none of the statements alleged in the complaint were defamatory and so ordered summary judgment against the doctor. Naturally, the plaintiff appealed and the Minnesota Appeals Court, ruling available here, reversed and remanded the case for trial. On September 4, 2012 the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral argument on the matter, docket found here, and the parties are currently waiting for the results.
While this whole thing occurred in another state, it is an interesting commentary on exactly what recourse is available to people whose professional reputations are now subject to search engine results. In Massachusetts, defamation can be broken down into 3 required elements: 1) the defendant published a defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, 2) the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the veracity of the statement, and 3) the statement either caused the plaintiff economic loss or was of the type that is actionable without proving loss. To complicate things a bit, when a defamatory statement is a matter of public concern the law of Massachusetts requires the plaintiff prove the statement was false when published.
So, I have used the term defamatory statements several times in the article and I think its time to define it. They can be described as those tending to subject the target to scorn, hatred, ridicule, contempt, or otherwise discrediting them in the minds of any considerable and respectable segment of the community. Most people reading this article will probably be thinking, “but what about free speech?” The First Amendment to the United States Constitution places limitations on the civil claim of defamation. If, for example, a statement is substantially true when made the statements are not actionable. In addition, one strongly worded opinion from Massachusetts Supreme Court declares that statements of pure opinion to be constitutionally protected because there is no such thing as a false idea.
Exactly what “substantially true” and “pure opinion” means could be articles in and of themselves. Suffice it to say, that while this case is in Minnesota the issue is all across our nation. With the prevalence of online opinion forums, and professionals trying to earn a living, there is certain to be opportunities for the trial and appeal courts of the Commonwealth to define these terms for the digital age.
Related Articles
- Leonardo Angiulo: How to File for Child Support
- Leonardo Angiulo: So, Someone You Care About Was Arrested Last Night
- Leonardo Angiulo: The Differences Between Criminal and Civil Cases
- Leonardo Angiulo: The Lifecycle of a Criminal Case in District Court
- Leonardo Angiulo: A Look at Medical Marijuana Laws
- Leonardo Angiulo: A Pakistani Girl’s Experience Shows How Free We Really Are
- Leonardo Angiulo: Body Language in Court
- Leonardo Angiulo: How Hollywood Misses the Mark with its Portrayal of Lawyers in the Movies
Follow us on Pinterest Google + Facebook Twitter See It Read It