Also known as: reckless disregard · reckless disregard standards · actual malice
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A fault standard requiring that a defendant acted with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard as to truth or the safety of others. The standard determines liability thresholds and the availability of certain defenses or damage recoveries.
Roland Rhodes crossed the street without looking while texting. A delivery driver for Riverside Healthcare sped through the intersection without braking or checking for pedestrians. Rhodes suffered serious injuries. In his negligence suit the driver raised contributory negligence. The court held that the driver's reckless disregard for pedestrian safety prevented the defense from barring recovery.
Raymond Ramos, a city council member, told a reporter that budget cuts were unfortunate but necessary. Radiance Media published a story quoting Ramos as saying the cuts were a deliberate scheme to harm low-income residents. The reporter had changed the wording to reverse the meaning. Ramos proved the alteration was deliberate and material, satisfying the reckless disregard standard.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ricardo Rojas, a lawyer running for judicial office, stated in a campaign ad that Judge Rebecca Ross had accepted bribes from corporate litigants. Rojas had no evidence and ignored court records showing the opposite. The disciplinary board found the statement was made with reckless disregard for its truth, violating the rule against false attacks on judicial integrity.
Rina Rahman, a county health inspector, sued Radiant Technologies after the company published a blog post accusing her of ignoring safety violations in exchange for favors. The post rested on an unverified tip and photographs from a fundraiser without checking inspection records. The court applied the reckless disregard standard and denied the company's motion to dismiss.
Rosalind Reed, owner of a small private clinic, received a credit report circulated only to five lenders stating the clinic was near insolvency. The report contained false financial figures. Because the report addressed a purely private matter, Reed recovered presumed damages without proving reckless disregard for the truth.
Rebecca Ross, a warehouse supervisor, ignored repeated warnings that a loading dock gate was unstable and continued directing workers to use it. A worker fell through the gate and was injured. The jury found that Ross's reckless disregard for worker safety made it reasonable to conclude her conduct was a legal cause of the harm.
A public official must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant published a false statement with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard as to its truth. This actual malice standard protects robust debate on public issues while allowing recovery when the publisher entertained serious doubts about accuracy.
No. Reckless disregard is shown when the defendant had a high degree of awareness of probable falsity or entertained serious doubts about the truth of the publication. Deliberate alteration that materially changes meaning can satisfy the standard even without direct proof of subjective knowledge.
Presumed and punitive damages may be recovered without actual malice when the defamatory statements do not involve matters of public concern. A credit report about a private company's finances circulated only to a limited group of subscribers is speech on a private matter that permits recovery of presumed damages under state law.
A plaintiff's ordinary contributory negligence does not bar recovery when the defendant's conduct constitutes reckless disregard for the plaintiff's safety. The plaintiff's own reckless disregard of personal safety, however, can bar recovery against a defendant whose reckless disregard caused the harm.
…conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "actual malice"that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. An oft-cited statement of a like rule, which has been adopted by a number of state courts, is found in the Kansas case of Coleman v. MacLennan, 78 Kan. 711,…