How To Prove A California Defamation – Per Quod Claim
In California, a claim of Defamation – Per Quod is defined as:
The publication of false or derogatory statements intentionally sharing slander which requires special damages.
It simply means:
More proof is required than general defamation, but more damages are also required.
There are 6 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant made a statement to a person other than the plaintiff. In a defamation case, “the defendant made a statement to a person other than the plaintiff” means that the person accused of spreading false information told someone else something harmful about the person suing them, rather than just talking directly to the person being harmed.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant told a mutual friend that the plaintiff was dishonest in their business dealings.
* During a social gathering, the defendant claimed to several attendees that the plaintiff had committed fraud.
* The defendant posted a comment on social media, accusing the plaintiff of theft, which was visible to the plaintiff’s contacts.
* The defendant sent an email to a colleague, stating that the plaintiff was incompetent in their job.
* At a community meeting, the defendant publicly accused the plaintiff of being involved in illegal activities. - Element 2. The person reasonably understood that the statement was about the plaintiff. In a defamation case, “the person reasonably understood that the statement was about the plaintiff” means that a typical person would see the statement as referring to the individual making the claim, suggesting it harmed their reputation.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The statement in question specifically mentioned the plaintiff by name, making it clear who was being referred to.
* The context of the statement included details that only pertained to the plaintiff’s recent actions, leading to a reasonable inference that it was about them.
* Witnesses testified that they understood the statement to be directed at the plaintiff based on the surrounding circumstances.
* The statement was made in a public forum where the plaintiff was the only individual relevant to the topic being discussed.
* The language used in the statement contained descriptors that closely matched the plaintiff’s known characteristics and behaviors. - Element 3. The defendant failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of the statement. In a defamation case, this means the person making the statement didn’t take the necessary steps to check if what they said was true or false, showing a lack of care in ensuring their words were accurate before sharing them.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant did not conduct any investigation into the accuracy of the statement before making it public.
* The defendant ignored credible sources that contradicted the statement’s claims.
* The defendant had a history of making similar unverified statements without seeking confirmation.
* The defendant failed to consult with experts or individuals knowledgeable about the subject matter.
* The defendant was aware of conflicting information but chose to disregard it in favor of the statement. - Element 4. Because of the facts and circumstances known to the person to whom the statement was made, the statement tended to injure the plaintiff in his occupation, or to expose him to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or shame, or to discourage others from associating or dealing with him/her. This means that the statement made about the person was harmful enough, given the situation and what the listener knew, to damage the person’s job, reputation, or relationships, making others look down on or avoid them.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The statement falsely accused the plaintiff of unethical behavior in their professional capacity, leading to a loss of clients and business opportunities.
* Colleagues and industry peers began to distance themselves from the plaintiff after hearing the damaging statement, resulting in social isolation.
* The statement was shared widely on social media, causing public backlash and negative perceptions of the plaintiff’s character and professionalism.
* The plaintiff’s reputation was significantly harmed, as potential employers expressed concerns about the allegations made in the statement during job interviews.
* The statement was made in a professional setting, where the plaintiff’s credibility and integrity were crucial for maintaining business relationships. - Element 5. The plaintiff suffered harm to his property, business, profession, or occupation. In a defamation case, the plaintiff must show that false statements harmed their property, business, or job, meaning that the negative claims led to financial loss or damage to their reputation in a way that affected their livelihood.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff’s business experienced a significant decline in sales following the publication of the defamatory statement.
* The plaintiff lost a lucrative contract due to negative perceptions created by the false statements made about him.
* The plaintiff’s professional reputation was damaged, resulting in the loss of clients and business opportunities.
* The plaintiff incurred legal fees and expenses while attempting to mitigate the damage caused by the defamatory remarks.
* The plaintiff’s ability to secure future employment was adversely affected by the false information disseminated about him. - Element 6. The statement was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm. In a defamation case, this means that the harmful statement played a significant role in causing the damage or injury the plaintiff experienced, showing that the statement was not just a minor issue but a key reason for their harm.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The statement was widely disseminated among the plaintiff’s professional network, leading to a significant loss of business opportunities.
* Following the publication of the statement, the plaintiff experienced a marked decline in their reputation, resulting in lost clients and contracts.
* The plaintiff received multiple communications from colleagues expressing concern about the statement and its impact on their professional standing.
* The statement directly led to the plaintiff being excluded from key industry events, further damaging their reputation and career prospects.
* The timing of the statement coincided with a critical period for the plaintiff’s business, exacerbating the negative effects on their financial stability.
(See Mecredy v. Sonic Indus., Inc., B286439 (Cal. Ct. App. July 8, 2019). California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 1705.)
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 CA Defamation – Per Quod Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only