Also known as: repetitions
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A basis for holding the original publisher of a libel or slander liable for special harm when a third person repeats the statement. Liability arises only when the repetition meets one of three conditions set out in the Restatement.
Ruby Rivera told Ricardo Rojas that a local contractor had bribed a building inspector. Ruby explicitly asked Ricardo to repeat the claim to the contractor's clients. Ricardo did so at a neighborhood meeting, and several clients withdrew their projects, causing the contractor measurable lost profits. The contractor sued Ruby for the losses traceable to Ricardo's statements.
Rina Rahman told a bank officer that her business partner had falsified loan documents. She authorized the officer to share the information with other banks considering the partner's applications. The officer repeated the claim to two additional lenders, both of which denied credit and caused the partner to lose a development deal. The partner sued Rahman for the resulting damages.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Roger Ramirez emailed a colleague that a competitor's product contained a safety defect. The colleague predictably repeated the claim to several attendees at a trade conference the next week. The competitor lost two major contracts after the attendees heard the story. The competitor sued Ramirez for the losses flowing from the conference repetitions.
Riley Rivera faced an attacker who lunged with a knife and threatened to kill her. Riley struck the attacker once with a heavy object, fracturing his skull and causing permanent loss of vision in one eye. The attacker later sued Riley for battery, claiming the blow exceeded necessary force.
A woman challenged a state abortion restriction while pregnant. By the time her case reached the Supreme Court, she had given birth. The Court nevertheless heard the case because the same plaintiff could become pregnant again and face the identical short-lived restriction before full appellate review could occur.
A federal court applying state tort law had previously followed a federal common-law rule on landowner duties. After the Supreme Court decision, the court abandoned that federal rule and instead applied the state supreme court's formulation of the duty, even though the federal approach had been repeated in many earlier federal opinions.
The original publisher is liable for special harm caused by the repetition only if the third person was privileged to repeat the statement, the repetition was authorized or intended by the original publisher, or the repetition was reasonably to be expected.
No. Each communication is classified by its own form. A written or fixed publication remains libel even if it repeats spoken statements that would separately qualify as slander.
Publication occurs as soon as the defendant intentionally or negligently communicates the statement to any person other than the plaintiff. Overhearing by nearby third parties during an open meeting meets this requirement.
…always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC , 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911). See Moore v. Ogilvie , 394 U. S. 814, 816 (1969); Carroll v. Princess Anne , 393 U. S. 175,…