Repercussions for false allegations

[jg1467]

PA- I am currently would like feedback on the possible repercussions for false SPCA allegations.

 

[Antigone*]

PA- I am currently would like feedback on the possible repercussions for false SPCA allegations.

I hate acromyns. What the heck is SPCA

 

[jg1467]

Society of Protection for the Cruelty of Animals

 

[Antigone*]

Society of Protection for the Cruelty of Animals

Ok, so now that we have that straightened out, please tell us exactly and succinctly what is going on.

 

[jg1467]

The situation

I go to a farm to ride horses; to make a long story short a girl who previously worked on the farm and did not leave on good terms called the society for protection of cruelty to animals on the farm explaining a laundry list of issues (that were not true) that the farm had with the horses. A representative came to the farm, saw nothing wrong, and said that there will be a charge for doing so.

 

[Proserpina]

I go to a farm to ride horses; to make a long story short a girl who previously worked on the farm and did not leave on good terms called the society for protection of cruelty to animals on the farm explaining a laundry list of issues (that were not true) that the farm had with the horses. A representative came to the farm, saw nothing wrong, and said that there will be a charge for doing so.

You would generally have to prove that she acted with malice in order to obtain any relief.

 

[latigo]

You would generally have to prove that she acted with malice in order to obtain any relief.

WHAT?

Since when is malice (or willful intent to disparage one’s reputation) a requisite element of proof in order to sustain a cause of action for defamation?

I'll tell you Proserpina. IT IS NOT a requisite element of proof of the tort! Not "generally" or specifically is malice a requisite element of the tort!

Moreover, inasmuch as the OP is in the horse business, false assertion made to others tending to denigrate her reputation for competency in that field constitutes slander per se! As opposed to the more burdensome cause of action for slander per quod.

Hopefully the OP will ignore your exercise in unschooled guesswork.

 

[tranquility]

Latigo need to take a cleansing breath before posting as he gets snippy a bit too much. And when he gets snippy, he tends to insult other posters, proclaim the law is clear and then quote something only somewhat related; ending up being wrong.

While we may look to defamation law for the answer, he forgot a couple of things. First, in general, there are defenses to the tort. Since we only have a scattered set of facts, we don't know what was said and so I won't go into them.

The second, which was the one being pointed out by Proserpina that was attacked by Latigo, is qualified privilege. In PA (and many other states), the SPCA has sworn officers who operate as law enforcement regarding animal issues. When a person reports crimes to the official agency sworn to handle them, the statements made are covered by a qualified privilege which raises the standard to find liability for defamation to malice.

 

[quincy]

First, SPCA stands for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. They certainly are not around to protect cruelty.

Second, latigo is, once again, showing how horribly misinformed he is when it comes to defamation law.

Proserpina, and tranquility, are right about the standard of proof needed when using a filed complaint as the basis for a defamation action. In addition, there are some states which have no "negligence" standard at all but only an "actual malice" standard for defamation actions, which would then make a showing of actual malice a "requisite element of the tort."

Third, whether something is "per se" defamation or not would be determined by the trial court.

Hopefully the OP will ignore latigo's exercise in unschooled guesswork.

Unless the girl who filed the complaint has made defamatory comments about the farm to others beside the SPCA, the farm probably has no defamation action worth pursuing against the girl.

 

[latigo]

Section 79 Volume 53 Corpus Jurus Secundum - Libel and Slander:

“The publication of defamatory matter actionable per se entitles the person defamed to compensation for the actual injury done him or her WITHOUT REGARD TO THE MOTIVE WITH WHICH THE PUBLICATION WAS MADE.

And LACK OF ACTUAL INTENT TO INJURE OR DEFAME FURNISHES NO LEGAL EXCUSE, at least in the absence of any claim to exemplary damages.

Thus intent is not an element of a cause of action for damages, unless a question of privilege is involved.” (Emphasis supplied)
_________________________

"A WANT OF AN INTENT TO INJURE IS NO DEFENSE to an action for slander or libel. It is not a legal excuse that defamatory matter was published accidentally or inadvertently, or that the words were spoken in jest, or that the defendant was drunk when he uttered the slander.”.Popular Law Library Vo l4 Torts, Damages, Domestic Relations", by Albert H. Putney. (Emphasis supplied)
__________________________

Title 42 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. C. S. - JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE Section 8343

“(a) Burden of plaintiff.--In an action for defamation, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, when the issue is properly raised:
(1) The defamatory character of the communication.
(2) Its publication by the defendant.
(3) Its application to the plaintiff.
(4) The understanding by the recipient of its defamatory meaning.
(5) The understanding by the recipient of it as intended to be applied to the plaintiff.
(6) Special harm resulting to the plaintiff from its publication.
(7) Abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion.

(b) Burden of defendant.--In an action for defamation, the defendant has the burden of proving, when the issue is properly raised:
(1) The truth of the defamatory communication.
(2) The privileged character of the occasion on which it was published.
(3) The character of the subject matter of defamatory comment as of public concern.“______________________________

RESTATEMENT (2D) OF TORTS

Section 558. Elements Stated
“To create liability for defamation there must be:
(a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another;
(b) an unprivileged publication to a third party;
(c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher
[with respect to the act of publication]; and
(d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the
existence of special harm caused by the publication.”

 

[tranquility]

Good 'ol 42(b)(2) is where you will find your error and where you will find the increase to malice.

(Also, 558(b) of the restatement and the third [unemphasized] line from the Corpus Juris Secundum.)

 

[Proserpina]

First, SPCA stands for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. They certainly are not around to protect cruelty.

Second, latigo is, once again, showing how horribly misinformed he is when it comes to defamation law.

Proserpina, and tranquility, are right about the standard of proof needed when using a filed complaint as the basis for a defamation action. In addition, there are some states which have no "negligence" standard at all but only an "actual malice" standard for defamation actions, which would then make a showing of actual malice a "requisite element of the tort."

Third, whether something is "per se" defamation or not would be determined by the trial court.

Hopefully the OP will ignore latigo's exercise in unschooled guesswork.

Unless the girl who filed the complaint has made defamatory comments about the farm to others beside the SPCA, the farm probably has no defamation action worth pursuing against the girl.

Gosh, I missed my own assassination...how on earth did I manage that?!

Thank you both - latigo's post was completely uncalled for.