Anxiety attack as Slander Defense?

[WNR77]

What is the name of your state? NJ

Could a person who utters a Slanderous statement about someone while having an anxiety attack be sued for making the statement?

Also..... If sued for slander, does the reason the person made the statement matter in considering if they are guilty of slander....

Example:

Betty has a severe anxiety disorder and has been on medication to treat the anxiety for over ten years.

Betty's Sister Karen, and Betty's Sister Ruth, both know that Betty has a severe anxiety disorder and is on medication for it.

Karen has told Betty on several occasions that she is considering committing minor crimes, and this makes Betty very upset.

Betty then finds what She believes is evidence that Karen has committed a crime.

Betty is now very upset and needs to talk about what she has discovered, so she tells her Sister Ruth about the evidence that she has found, and how she believes that Karen has committed a crime.

During the conversation Ruth asks Betty if Karen has committed a theft, and Betty says "yes, Karen is a thief". Betty is now extremely upset, and then says to her Sister "We have to be careful because Karen is going to steal from us next".

The next day Ruth tells her friend Alan who is also a friend of Karen's, that Betty said that Karen has committed a theft. Alan then tells Karen what Ruth has told him.

Karen then sues Betty for Slander, will she be able to collect damages from Betty?

 

[quincy]

Will Karen be able to collect damages from Betty? Doubtful.

Can Karen sue anyway? Yes. Anyone can sue anyone else at any time for any reason - they just can't always win any suit they bring, and it highly unlikely Karen would win any defamation action brought against Betty, based on what you have posted.

Although an anxiety attack is not a defense for slander, Betty still has a legitimate defense. When Betty told Ruth about Karen, she believed that what she told Ruth was true - one, because Karen herself led Betty to believe it could be true and, two, because Betty thought she found evidence to support her belief that it was true.

There are several parts to a defamation action, and all conditions must be met before a defamation action can hope to be successful.

One condition is the defamation itself - and falsely being called a thief is defamatory (with a few exceptions).

Another condition is "publication" - and here the defamatory comment must be made to at least one person other than the person defamed. And Betty did tell Ruth, who later told Alan.

The person about whom the defamatory comment is made must be identified, as well, and Betty identified Karen as the thief, and Ruth repeated this to Alan.

So three conditions necessary for a defamation action to succeed are met. BUT, two other conditions are not met.

The person defamed must persuasively demonstrate "fault" in order to win a defamation action. Here is where Karen's defamation action against Betty would fall apart. In order to prove fault, you must prove that the defamation was negligently published, or published without the "due care" that would be used by an ordinary or average person of ordinary or average sensibilities. Betty believed what she told Ruth about Karen was true, and she passed this information on to her sister, as a legitimate warning. It was not "negligent" publication.

In addition, and finally, there must be a demonstrated "injury". Karen must be able to show a monetary loss and/or an impairment of her reputation and standing in the community and/or, in some cases, personal humiliation and mental anguish. None of these have been demonstrated.

So, Karen can sue Betty, but she fails to meet two of the conditions necessary to bring a successful suit against her. She will not win a defamation action based on the information you have posted here, and therefore will not be able to collect any damages from Betty. The only one who will be able to collect anything is the attorney she hires to represent her.

 

[bamboozled]

cat-fight

Sounds like petty gossip to me....find new people to hang with.

 

[quincy]

It actually sounds more like a homework assignment.

 

[WNR77]

Will Karen be able to collect damages from Betty? Doubtful.

Can Karen sue anyway? Yes. Anyone can sue anyone else at any time for any reason - they just can't always win any suit they bring, and it highly unlikely Karen would win any defamation action brought against Betty, based on what you have posted.

Although an anxiety attack is not a defense for slander, Betty still has a legitimate defense. When Betty told Ruth about Karen, she believed that what she told Ruth was true - one, because Karen herself led Betty to believe it could be true and, two, because Betty thought she found evidence to support her belief that it was true.

There are several parts to a defamation action, and all conditions must be met before a defamation action can hope to be successful.

One condition is the defamation itself - and falsely being called a thief is defamatory (with a few exceptions).

Another condition is "publication" - and here the defamatory comment must be made to at least one person other than the person defamed. And Betty did tell Ruth, who later told Alan.

The person about whom the defamatory comment is made must be identified, as well, and Betty identified Karen as the thief, and Ruth repeated this to Alan.

So three conditions necessary for a defamation action to succeed are met. BUT, two other conditions are not met.

The person defamed must persuasively demonstrate "fault" in order to win a defamation action. Here is where Karen's defamation action against Betty would fall apart. In order to prove fault, you must prove that the defamation was negligently published, or published without the "due care" that would be used by an ordinary or average person of ordinary or average sensibilities. Betty believed what she told Ruth about Karen was true, and she passed this information on to her sister, as a legitimate warning. It was not "negligent" publication.

In addition, and finally, there must be a demonstrated "injury". Karen must be able to show a monetary loss and/or an impairment of her reputation and standing in the community and/or, in some cases, personal humiliation and mental anguish. None of these have been demonstrated.

So, Karen can sue Betty, but she fails to meet two of the conditions necessary to bring a successful suit against her. She will not win a defamation action based on the information you have posted here, and therefore will not be able to collect any damages from Betty. The only one who will be able to collect anything is the attorney she hires to represent her.

Thank you quincy.

I think I understand...

So.... if a person persuades another that they are considering doing something that is dishonest, they generally loose the right to recover damages if a defamatory statement is later made that has arisen because of that persons own statement implying that they are dishonest.

Is this correct? or could it be said better?

 

[las365]

WNR77, do yourself and your professors and your potential future clients (if you manage to graduate and pass the bar) and work on your homework assignments by doing your own research using the law library and other legal resources, not free advice internet forums.

 

[WNR77]

WNR77, do yourself and your professors and your potential future clients (if you manage to graduate and pass the bar) and work on your homework assignments by doing your own research using the law library and other legal resources, not free advice internet forums.

But I really am looking for advice.

 

[las365]

What is the name of your state? NJ

Example:

Mary has a mortgage on a property where they are building a new home. The house is half completed, but they are having trouble getting the mortgage company to give them the money to finish the home. Meanwhile they are using their own money to work on the house, and they are having trouble making the Mortgage payments on time. The Mortgage company is now threatening foreclosure on their home.

Mary's Mortgage Broker suggests that they find someone who is wiling to apply for a new mortgage, and buy the home to get it out of the current mortgage situation.

Mary's jobless uncle Larry has several unpaid judgments against him, and says he'd be willing to help Mary if she would pay off his debts. Mary agrees, they pay off Larry's debts, and the mortgage broker then inflates Larry's income on the Mortgage application, they get the loan, and the house is then transfered into Larry's name.

Mary's lawyer Kevin, who is also a personal friend of Mary's, is fully aware of all the details surrounding the pending transaction, and he asks his Lawyer friend Joe, to represent Larry during the closing, Kevin tells Joe all the details, and Joe agrees to represent Larry.

After Larry gets the mortgage, Mary then gives Larry the money each month to make the mortgage payment on the home that is now in Larry's name. Mary moves into the home after it is completed. The Lawyers plan to put the house back into Mary's name with a new mortgage after some time has past.

Has anyone committed any crimes in this senerio, and if so, what crimes, and who has committed them?

But I really am looking for advice.

I don't think so.

 

[quincy]

Well, las, the "homework assignment" was just a guess on my part. Good guess, huh?!


And, WNR77, your wording isn't quite right. You are making a generalization based on one case - and each case must be judged on its own merits. There are always different factors in each case to take into consideration (including who the attorneys are representing the parties - think of the O.J. case, for instance). No one can say with an absolute certainty that any legal action against someone is going to be a sure win or a sure loss.

But, in your example, Karen's whole defamation case essentially depends upon her proving there was negligent publication by Betty, and proving an injury to her reputation from this publication. It is highly unlikely that Karen could prove these and win a defamation action.

(Post back, by the way, and tell me if I get an "A". )

 

[WNR77]

Well, las, the "homework assignment" was just a guess on my part. Good guess, huh?!


And, WNR77, your wording isn't quite right. You are making a generalization based on one case - and each case must be judged on its own merits. There are always different factors in each case to take into consideration (including who the attorneys are representing the parties - think of the O.J. case, for instance). No one can say with an absolute certainty that any legal action against someone is going to be a sure win or a sure loss.

But, in your example, Karen's whole defamation case essentially depends upon her proving there was negligent publication by Betty, and proving an injury to her reputation from this publication. It is highly unlikely that Karen could prove these and win a defamation action.

(Post back, by the way, and tell me if I get an "A". )

Quincy, thank you so much for all your input.

I believe that I can now say now with reasonable certainty, that the real individual for whom theses questions were intended to benefit has not committed slander because the statement they made is very likely true. I believe that any reasonable person would look upon the same evidence and come to the same conclusion.

Yes Quincy.... You DO get an "A".

 

[quincy]

YAY! I have always done well on essay tests!!

 

[seniorjudge]

Quincy, thank you so much for all your input.

I believe that I can now say now with reasonable certainty, that the real individual for whom theses questions were intended to benefit has not committed slander because the statement they made is very likely true. I believe that any reasonable person would look upon the same evidence and come to the same conclusion.

Yes Quincy.... You DO get an "A".

I disagree.

 

[quincy]

Uh....why?

 

[seniorjudge]

Uh....why?

I am playing United States Supreme Court Justice today!

 

[quincy]

Ahhhh. I thought you were playing professor. I want to keep my A!