Damages awarded in a defamation action without proof of actual harm to reputation or of actual malice by the defendant. States may authorize such awards when the defamatory speech addresses a matter of purely private concern rather than a public controversy.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
3
Credit Report to Trade Subscribers
Metro Credit Bureau sent a confidential bulletin to five equipment vendors stating that Premier Manufacturing had defaulted on all accounts and entered receivership. The report was false. Premier sued for defamation under state law and requested presumed and punitive damages. Because the bulletin reached only a narrow commercial audience and concerned one firm's private financial condition, the court permitted the requested damages without requiring proof of actual malice.
Newspaper Article on Public Issue
Philadelphia Newspapers published a series of articles accusing a private businessman of links to organized crime in connection with a local real-estate scandal. The businessman sued and sought presumed and punitive damages. Because the articles addressed a matter of public concern, the court required the plaintiff to prove actual malice before those categories of damages could be awarded.
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps475 U.S. 767 (1986)
Maurice S. Hepps served as the principal stockholder of General Programming, Inc. (GPI). GPI franchised a chain of Thrifty stores selling beer, soft drinks, and snacks. Hepps, the corporation, and several franchisees brought a defamation action in Pennsylvania state court against Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer, and reporters William Ecenbarger and William Lambert.
Between May 1975 and May 1976 the Inquirer published five articles. The articles stated that Hepps and the Thrifty chain maintained links to organized crime. They claimed those links allowed influence over a state legislator described as a convicted felon. The stories reported that federal investigators had uncovered connections between Thrifty and underworld figures. They also stated that Thrifty had obtained competitive advantages through State Liquor Control Board rulings and that a grand jury was examining whether the chain received special treatment from the Governor's administration.
At trial Hepps testified at length that the statements were false. He cross-examined the articles' authors on their accuracy. The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs bore the burden of proving falsity and instructed the jury accordingly. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. That court held that the burden of proving truth remained with the defendants and remanded the case for a new trial. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
A prominent attorney sued a magazine that published an article accusing him of framing police officers. The attorney sought presumed and punitive damages. Because the plaintiff qualified as a public figure and the article addressed a matter of public concern, the court held that recovery of those damages required a showing of actual malice.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974)
In 1968, Chicago police officer Richard Nuccio shot and killed a youth named Nelson. State authorities prosecuted Nuccio and obtained a conviction for second-degree murder. The Nelson family retained petitioner Elmer Gertz, a Chicago attorney, to represent them in civil litigation against Nuccio.
Respondent Robert Welch, Inc., publishes American Opinion, a monthly magazine expressing the views of the John Birch Society. In March 1969, the magazine published an article titled "FRAME-UP: Richard Nuccio And The War On Police." The article accused Gertz of participating in a Communist conspiracy to discredit local law enforcement, described him as a "Leninist" and "Communist-fronter," and claimed he had been an officer of the National Lawyers Guild, which it portrayed as a Communist organization involved in planning attacks on Chicago police during the 1968 Democratic Convention. The article contained numerous inaccuracies, including the false implication that Gertz had a criminal record.
Gertz had served as an officer of the National Lawyers Guild approximately fifteen years earlier but had no involvement in planning the 1968 demonstrations. He had never been a member of the Marxist League for Industrial Democracy or the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. The managing editor of American Opinion made no effort to verify the charges against Gertz before publication and appended an editorial introduction stating that the author had conducted extensive research.
Gertz filed a diversity action for libel in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The district court ruled that the statements constituted libel per se under Illinois law. After a trial, the jury awarded Gertz $50,000 in compensatory damages. The district court later entered judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, applying the New York Times standard. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the application of constitutional standards to defamation of a private individual.
When may a plaintiff recover presumed and punitive damages without proving actual malice?
Recovery without actual malice is permitted when the defamatory speech concerns a matter of purely private concern. In such cases the First Amendment does not impose the Gertz limitations, and state law controls the availability of those damages.
Supporting sources
Does the actual-malice requirement for presumed and punitive damages apply to every defamation plaintiff?
No. The requirement applies only when the speech addresses a matter of public concern. When the speech is of purely private concern, states may authorize presumed and punitive damages on a lesser showing such as negligence.
Supporting sources
How does the public-concern determination affect the availability of presumed and punitive damages?
Speech on a matter of public concern triggers the constitutional limits established in Gertz. Speech of purely private concern receives less First Amendment protection, allowing states greater latitude to permit presumed and punitive damages without actual malice.
Supporting sources
What showing is required for presumed and punitive damages when the plaintiff is a public figure?
A public figure must prove actual malice to recover presumed or punitive damages even if the speech is on a matter of public concern. Actual malice means knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Supporting sources
418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974)
…I am willing to join, and do join, the Court's opinion and its judgment for two reasons: 1. By removing the specters of presumed and punitive damages in the absence of New York Times malice, the Court eliminates significant and powerful motives for self-censorship that otherwise are present in the traditional libel action. By so doing,…