1 – Discuss “per se” defamation. Is it a tort of “strict liability?” If so, are there
any situations where an entity could escape strict liability for a “per se” tort? If
not, should this be a tort of strict liability?
“Per se” defamation are the cases where the types of defamatory statements in play
are considered so egregious in their potential to destroy a reputation that the
plaintiff does not need to present specific evidence of harm.
“Per se” defamation is a tort of strict liability, which means the plaintiff prevails
without needing to prove negligence, once they have proved that the damaging
statement was published. An entity can escape strict liability in a few situations.
They can dispute the contention that they published the statement or that it was
defamatory, they can attempt to prove that the statement is true, or they can argue
that the statement was “made from behind the shield of a privilege” (Cihon and
Castagnera 38). Qualified privilege provides immunity from a suit because they
made the remarks in good faith. If the defendant communicated the defamatory
statement as an employee reporting an issue to a supervisor who had a legitimate
need to know the information, this can be an example of being shielded from strict
liability with a recognized privilege.
Reference:
Cihon, Patrick, and James Ottavio Castagnera. Employment and Labor Law. 10th ed.,
Cengage Learning, 2019.
