Defamation of Family Members
There is an interesting item in the news regarding a case where a memoir author was sued by people in his family for defamation. The parties settled before trial so we will not get to find out if the defamation claim was valid but it still made for an interesting story.
A family that claimed they were defamed in the best-selling book “Running with Scissors” has settled a lawsuit against the writer and his publisher.
…
The family’s lawsuit had sought $2 million in damages for defamation, invasion of privacy and emotional distress. It alleged the book is largely fictional and written in a sensational way to increase its market appeal; it also demanded a public retraction and an acknowledgment that “Running With Scissors” is a work of fiction. Link to Article
In Washington, in order to recover under a cause of action for defamation, plaintiff must establish four essential elements: (1) falsity; (2) an unprivileged communication; (3) fault; and (4) damages. Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wn.2d 473, 486, 635 P.2d 1081 (1981).
Damages has always been the hardest element to prove. This makes sense, because how can one prove to a court the dollar value of the damage caused by defamatory statement . In very few cases could damages be proved satisfactorily to a court. If the law left it at that, then defamation would be a toothless doctrine. Because plaintiffs would often be unable to prove damages.
Luckily, for victims of defamation, the law recognizes the difficulty in proving damages, even for the most offensive and horrendous defamation. To balance the scales of justice back towards the victim there is the notion of “defamation per se.”
A defamatory publication is libelous per se (actionable without proof of special damages) if it (1) exposes a living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse, or (2) injures him in his business, trade, profession or office. GRAYSON v. CURTIS PUB’G CO., 72 Wn.2d 999, 436 P.2d 756 (1967)
This rule relieves victims from having to calculate the actual monetary damages caused by such statement. The theory is that the subject matter of the statement is so egregious on its face that proving the monetary value of the damage is unnecessary.
As the author is the quoted article discovered, saying terrible false statements about anyone, including family members can land you in hot water.
