Can someone sue you for slander/libel if you heard a rumour about them and you told s

[imwondering]

Can someone sue you for slander/libel if you heard a rumour about them and you told someone else?

For example, if I tell someone that: " I heard person X has a criminal record. "

 

[quincy]

Yup. In the U.S, at any rate (perhaps not in Alberta, Canada).

Repeating a libelous/slanderous statement is still libel/slander.

Plus, anyone can sue anyone else for pretty much any reason at all - if a suit has no merit, however, it will not get very far.

But, taking your example, the "I heard person X has a criminal record" statement may or may not be enough to support a defamation claim. It really depends on the context (who the comment was communicated to, the reason for the communication, where it was communicated, etc) and all of the facts surrounding the communication.

The old adage, "If you don't have something nice to say, it is better to say nothing at all," is on the whole pretty good advice to follow.

 

[antrc170]

While in theory it is possible, it's highly unlikely. The person whom the comment is about would have to show that he/she actually was damaged by the comment. If you are just talking with friends and you say "I heard Sara has a criminal record.", that would not be slander. If you were in a boardroom and Sara was up for a promotion and you stated that, then if Sara didn't get the promotion it could be construed as slander.

 

[You Are Guilty]

While in theory it is possible, it's highly unlikely. The person whom the comment is about would have to show that he/she actually was damaged by the comment. If you are just talking with friends and you say "I heard Sara has a criminal record.", that would not be slander. If you were in a boardroom and Sara was up for a promotion and you stated that, then if Sara didn't get the promotion it could be construed as slander.

Almost 100% incorrect. Nice effort, though.

 

[quincy]

antrc170, defamation is the harming of a person's reputation by communicating a false statement to a third person. Who this third person is will (generally) not be a factor.

Slander is the spoken form of defamation; libel is the written form of defamation. The elements required for a successful suit may differ slightly, depending on the state.

If you say to your friends that you heard Sara has a criminal record, and Sara does not have a criminal record, Sara can sue you for slander. Sara could also sue the person from whom you heard the false statement, and Sara could sue anyone else who passes on the false information to others.

In many states, the false accusation of a crime (or implying falsely that someone has committed a crime) would be defamation per se, which presumes injury to the reputation and fault on the part of the speaker/writer. Damages can be awarded on this presumed injury alone - even if there is no other evidence of reputational injury.

Your first statement, that it is unlikely someone will sue, is probably correct - but this could be due more to the costs involved in pursuing a defamation suit than the possible merits of a suit.

 

[You Are Guilty]

And although quincy alluded to it in his first response, it bears repeating that a qualified immunity argument often provides for a total defense (in certain situations, of course).

 

[Just Blue]

02-16-2011, 01:38 AM
imwondering
Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2

Defamation in the work place?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A past co-worker / colleague was recently hired at the company I work for.
However, in the past, I had heard rumours that this co-worker/colleague had been under house arrest for some 'family issues.

He has recently applied for the new company that I currently work for/with.
I mentioned that I had heard rumours of this past co-workers/colleagues supposed leagal trouble/incarceration.

Could I be held liable for 'defamation'?

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Alberta, Canada

 

[You Are Guilty]

Ah, Canada, the 51st state. Now if we could just gt them to pay their US taxes...

 

[latigo]

While in theory it is possible, it's highly unlikely. The person whom the comment is about would have to show that he/she actually was damaged by the comment. . . . .

Your is a very misleading response and one that you might wish to rethink should you make the effort to learn an important evidentiary distinction between a publication that is slanderous or libelous per se and one that is slanderous or libelous per qoud!

One requires proof of special damages and the other does not. And this does not.

 

[quincy]

Referring back to YAG's post and Blue Meanie's quote of imwondering's earlier post, and keeping in mind that this applies to U.S. defamation law in most states and does not necessarily apply to Canadian defamation law**:

The communication to a third person about the possible criminal past of an applicant for a position at your place of employment, or of the possible criminal past of a current employee, often is protected by the qualified privilege YAG mentioned, if the third person this communication is made to is your employer. As long as the communicated statement was made out of a duty to your employer to protect your employer and was made in the interest of the company, and was made by you without malice, you are on pretty safe legal ground in most states.

And then there is the absolute privilege that attaches to defamatory statements made in the course of or in relation to a judicial proceeding. These cannot result in a defamation claim at all (although, with defamatory lies told in court, there may be contempt of court or perjury charges to worry about ).


**In Alberta, a qualified privilege attaches to statements that are communicated by a person who has a "moral, social, political, legal, or professional duty" to communicate the information (as could be the case with an employee providing information on another employee to an employer), even if this information later turns out to be false and could potentially support a defamation claim under different circumstances. This qualified privilege can be lost if the information was known by the communicator to be false at the time it was related (actual malice).