How To Prove A Florida Defamation – Libel Per Se Claim
In Florida, a claim of Defamation – Libel Per Se is defined as:
Libel is written or published defamatory statements. It involves statements that are considered inherently damaging, and the plaintiff is not required to prove actual damages. Examples of libel per se may include false accusations of criminal activity, statements that damage a person’s professional reputation, false claims about a person having a serious disease, or false allegations of immoral conduct.
It simply means:
An untrue written public statement designed to damage someone’s reputation.
There are 6 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant published a false and defamatory written statement of and concerning the plaintiff. The defendant made a false written statement that harmed the plaintiff’s reputation, clearly identifying the plaintiff and damaging their character in a way that is considered serious and harmful by law.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant published an article in a local newspaper that falsely accused the plaintiff of embezzling funds from their employer.
* The written statement included specific allegations that the plaintiff had been arrested for theft, which were entirely untrue and damaging to the plaintiff’s reputation.
* The defendant knowingly included false information in a blog post that claimed the plaintiff was involved in illegal drug activities.
* The publication reached a wide audience, causing significant harm to the plaintiff’s personal and professional relationships.
* The defendant failed to verify the accuracy of the statements before publishing, demonstrating a reckless disregard for the truth. - Element 2. The plaintiff was a private citizen at the time the statement was made. In a defamation case, “the plaintiff was a private citizen at the time the statement was made” means that the person who claims to have been harmed by false statements was not a public figure, which can affect how the case is handled in court.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff was not a public figure or official, and had no prior involvement in public controversies.
* At the time the statement was made, the plaintiff was engaged in private business activities unrelated to any public interest.
* The plaintiff had not voluntarily injected themselves into any public debate or discussion prior to the statement being made.
* The plaintiff’s social media presence was limited to personal interactions, with no indication of seeking public attention or notoriety.
* The plaintiff had no history of public speaking or media appearances that would categorize them as a public figure. - Element 3. The defendant made the statement without reasonable care as to its truthfulness or falsity. The defendant made a false statement without taking the time or effort to check if it was true or not, showing a lack of care about the accuracy of what they said.
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 clear evidence that contradicted the statement, choosing instead to rely on unverified rumors.
* The defendant had a history of making similar false statements without conducting proper fact-checking.
* The defendant was aware of the potential harm the statement could cause but proceeded to publish it anyway.
* The defendant did not consult any experts or credible sources regarding the truthfulness of the statement prior to its release. - Element 4. The statement was without privilege. The statement was made without privilege means that the person who made the statement had no special legal protection to say it, making them fully responsible for any harm it caused, especially if the statement was false and damaging to someone’s reputation.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant published the statement in a public forum without any legal justification or privilege to do so.
* The statement was made with knowledge of its falsity and was not protected by any applicable privilege.
* The defendant had no relationship to the subject matter that would grant them a privilege to make the statement.
* The statement was made in a context that did not involve any official duty or public interest, negating any claim of privilege.
* The defendant failed to verify the truth of the statement before publishing it, demonstrating a lack of due diligence. - Element 5. The statement imputed to the plaintiff one of the following: (a) a criminal offense amounting to a felony; (b) a presently existing venereal or other loathsome and communicable disease; (c) conduct, characteristics, or a condition incompatible with the proper exercise of his lawful business, trade, profession, or office; or (d) acts of unchastity if the plaintiff is a woman. In a defamation case, “libel per se” means that a statement falsely claims something serious about the plaintiff, like committing a felony, having a contagious disease, behaving inappropriately for their job, or, if the plaintiff is a woman, engaging in immoral behavior.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant publicly accused the plaintiff of embezzling funds from their employer, which constitutes a felony offense.
* The defendant claimed that the plaintiff was diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease, damaging the plaintiff’s reputation and personal relationships.
* The defendant alleged that the plaintiff engaged in unethical business practices, suggesting that the plaintiff is unfit to operate their business.
* The defendant spread rumors that the plaintiff had engaged in extramarital affairs, which could be perceived as acts of unchastity.
* The defendant stated that the plaintiff was under investigation for fraud, implying criminal conduct that undermines the plaintiff’s professional integrity. - Element 6. The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the defendant’s statement. Applies if the defendant is a media outlet. The plaintiff experienced harm, such as loss of reputation or financial issues, because of a false statement made by the defendant, which in this case is a media outlet.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff’s reputation in the community was significantly harmed after the defendant published false statements about their character.
* Following the publication, the plaintiff lost business opportunities and clients due to the negative perception created by the defendant’s statements.
* The plaintiff experienced emotional distress and anxiety as a direct result of the defamatory statements made by the defendant.
* The defendant’s statements were widely disseminated, leading to public ridicule and scorn directed at the plaintiff.
* The plaintiff incurred legal fees while attempting to mitigate the damage caused by the defendant’s false statements.
(See Blake v. Ann-Marie Giustibelli, P.A., 182 So. 3d 881. Richard v. Gray, 62 So. 2d 597, 598 (Fla. 1953).Shafran v. Parrish, 787 So. 2d 177, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a claim of Defamation – Libel Per Se, 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 that are 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 FL Defamation – Libel Per Se Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only