How To Prove A California Defamation – Per Se Claim

 

How To Prove A California Defamation - Per Se Claim

 

In California, a claim of Defamation – Per Se is defined as:

Defamation per se is a type of cause of action in which the content of the alleged false statement is so inherently damaging, damages are presumed to exist from the mere fact the statement was made.

It simply means:

An untrue public statement that damages someone’s reputation.

There are 5 elements of the claim:

  • Element 1. The defendant published a statement. “Published” can mean printed or communicated orally. The defendant made a statement that was shared with others, either by printing it in a newspaper or saying it out loud, which is a key part of proving a defamation claim where the statement is considered harmful on its face.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant made a public statement during a community meeting, asserting that the plaintiff engaged in criminal activity.
    * The defendant shared a written post on social media, claiming that the plaintiff was dishonest in their business dealings.
    * The defendant sent an email to multiple colleagues, alleging that the plaintiff had been fired for misconduct.
    * The defendant verbally accused the plaintiff of cheating in a public forum, which was overheard by several attendees.
    * The defendant published an article in a local newspaper, stating that the plaintiff was involved in fraudulent practices.

  • Element 2. The publication was false. In a defamation case, “the publication was false” means that the statement made about someone was not true, and this false information was shared with others, harming the person’s reputation.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The statement claimed that the plaintiff had been convicted of a crime, which was untrue and easily verifiable.
    * The publication inaccurately reported that the plaintiff had engaged in unethical business practices, despite no evidence supporting such claims.
    * The article falsely stated that the plaintiff had been fired from their job for misconduct, when in fact they had resigned voluntarily.
    * The publication alleged that the plaintiff was involved in a scandal, which was based on hearsay and lacked factual basis.
    * The report misrepresented the plaintiff’s professional qualifications, stating they lacked necessary certifications, which was factually incorrect.

  • Element 3. The publication was defamatory. A publication is considered defamatory when it makes false statements about someone that harm their reputation, such as claiming they committed a crime or have a contagious disease, without needing to prove actual damages because the statements are inherently damaging.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The publication falsely accused the plaintiff of committing a crime, which is inherently damaging to their reputation.
    * The statement claimed that the plaintiff engaged in unethical business practices, leading to significant financial losses.
    * The publication described the plaintiff as a dishonest individual, which would lower their standing in the community.
    * The content of the publication was shared widely, amplifying its harmful impact on the plaintiff’s personal and professional life.
    * The statements made in the publication were presented as facts, despite lacking any evidence to support them.

  • Element 4. The publication was unprivileged. In a defamation case, “the publication was unprivileged” means that the harmful statement was shared publicly without any legal protection, such as being part of a court proceeding or a confidential situation, making it easier for the victim to prove their case.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The statement was made publicly without any legal justification or privilege.
    * The publication was disseminated to a wide audience, including individuals not involved in the matter.
    * The author of the statement had no official duty or responsibility to share the information.
    * The content of the publication was not based on verified facts or reliable sources.
    * The statement was made with the intent to harm the reputation of the plaintiff.

  • Element 5. The publication accused the plaintiff of criminal conduct or injured the plaintiff in relation to their professional activities. This means that the publication made false statements about the plaintiff that suggested they committed a crime or harmed their reputation in their job, which can lead to serious damage to their career and personal life.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The publication explicitly stated that the plaintiff was involved in embezzlement, damaging their reputation in the financial industry.
    * The article claimed that the plaintiff had been arrested for fraud, leading to the loss of clients and business opportunities.
    * The report suggested that the plaintiff engaged in unethical practices, resulting in professional sanctions from their licensing board.
    * The publication described the plaintiff as a “criminal” in connection with their business dealings, causing significant harm to their professional standing.
    * The content implied that the plaintiff was under investigation for illegal activities, which adversely affected their career prospects.

(See Burrill v. Nair, 217 Cal. App. 4th 357 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate Dist. 2013; Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2010.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Defamation – Per Se, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed 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 necessary to navigate this complex legal landscape effectively.

Prove Your CA Defamation – Per Se Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only

Just a moment please.