How To Prove A Michigan Defamation – Per Quod Claim

 

 

In Michigan, a claim of Defamation – Per Quod is defined as:

Defamation Per Quod is a type of slander where the defamatory nature of the statement is not immediately apparent and requires additional context or information to understand its defamatory meaning. The term “per quod” is Latin for “whereby” or “by reason of which.”

It simply means:

An untrue statement spoken publicly to damage someone else’s reputation.

There are 4 elements of the claim:

• Element 1. The defendant made a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff. The defendant said something untrue and harmful about the plaintiff that damaged their reputation, which is a key part of a defamation claim.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant publicly stated that the plaintiff was involved in criminal activities, which were untrue and unfounded.
  * The defendant shared a false rumor about the plaintiff’s professional misconduct with several colleagues, damaging the plaintiff’s reputation.
  * The defendant posted a misleading comment on social media, suggesting the plaintiff had engaged in unethical behavior, which was not supported by any evidence.
  * The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had been fired from their job for dishonesty, despite the plaintiff having resigned voluntarily.
  * The defendant told a mutual friend that the plaintiff was under investigation for fraud, which was completely false and harmful to the plaintiff’s standing in the community.

• Element 2. The defendant communicated the statement to a third party. In a defamation case, “the defendant communicated the statement to a third party” means that the person accused of spreading false information shared that harmful statement with someone else, not just the person it was about, which can help prove the claim.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant verbally shared the statement with a mutual friend during a conversation at a local café.
  * The defendant posted the statement on their public social media account, where it was visible to hundreds of followers.
  * The defendant sent an email containing the statement to several colleagues at work, discussing the plaintiff’s character.
  * The defendant made the statement during a public meeting, where attendees included individuals outside of the immediate parties involved.
  * The defendant texted the statement to a group chat that included multiple individuals who were not related to the plaintiff.

• Element 3. The defendant acted with at least negligence in publishing the statement. In a defamation case, this means the person who made the harmful statement did so carelessly or without proper thought, failing to consider whether it could hurt someone’s reputation.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant failed to verify the accuracy of the information before publishing it, despite having access to reliable sources.
  * The defendant ignored warnings from colleagues about the potential falsehood of the statement prior to its release.
  * The defendant had a history of publishing unverified claims, demonstrating a pattern of negligence in their reporting practices.
  * The statement was published without any attempt to seek comment or clarification from the subject of the statement.
  * The defendant did not follow standard editorial procedures that would have likely prevented the publication of the false statement.

• Element 4. The plaintiff suffered special harm due to the publication. In a defamation case, “special harm” means the plaintiff experienced specific negative consequences, like losing a job or business, because of false statements made about them, showing that the harmful effects were not just general but directly linked to the published remarks.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff lost a lucrative business contract after the defamatory statement was published, resulting in a significant financial loss.
  * The plaintiff experienced emotional distress and anxiety, leading to medical treatment and therapy expenses due to the impact of the publication.
  * The plaintiff’s reputation in the community was severely damaged, causing them to lose social connections and opportunities for networking.
  * The plaintiff was denied a promotion at work because colleagues believed the defamatory statement, affecting their career advancement.
  * The plaintiff incurred legal fees while pursuing a retraction and correction of the false statements made about them.

^{(See Mich. Comp. Laws §600.2911 (2023).)}
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Defamation – Per Quod, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make critical decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to navigate your case effectively.

Prove Your MI Defamation – Per Quod Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only