Have I been slandered?

[stephenk]

Megan, a person cannot accidently commit an intentional tort. Intent to harm (malice) is required to commit an intentional tort. Accidently injuring someone is called negligence if all the other requirements of negligence are met (duty, causation, etc.)

 

[meganproser]

"Intent to harm (malice) is required to commit an intentional tort"

Please cite the legal authority for this statement. Thank you.

BTW, rest assured that if you provide me with the legal authority, I will be very happy to have learned something new and I will most certainly acknowledge that I have done so...unlike others here who make the challenge and then fail to recognize that it has been met.

 

[meganproser]

Also, someone please tell me, if you accidently cause damage to my reputation, what cause of action will address that harm?

If you accidently invade my privacy, what cause of action will address that harm?

Thank you.

 

[meganproser]

Paradise's assumptions are based upon her very limited view of things and her even more limited knowledge of the legal field. Her idiocy is exceeded only by the stupidity of anyone who would listen to her.

Paradise, you should not be so afraid to do some research before YOU answer questions here. It MIGHT prevent you from offering incorrect information on such things as home inspections, DUIs in Wisconsin, Civil Procedure in Federal Court, the high risk aspect of writing to the PACER people, partition, etc., etc., etc.

Having said that, no YAG, I am not now and never have been in law school.

 

[seniorjudge]

Also, someone please tell me, if you accidently cause damage to my reputation, what cause of action will address that harm?

If you accidently invade my privacy, what cause of action will address that harm?

Thank you.

http://www.west.net/~smith/distress.htm

The Restatement view is that liability "does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities," but only to conduct so extreme and outrageous "as to go beyond all possible bonds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." (Rest. 2d Torts, § 46, com. d; see Prosser, Law of Torts, supra, at pp. 46-47.) "The emotional distress must in fact exist, and it must be severe." (Prosser, Law of Torts, supra, p. 51; Rest.2d Torts, supra, § 46, Com. j.)

 

[stephenk]

Direct from Westlaw:

Under California law, elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by defendant with intention of causing, or reckless disregard of probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of emotional distress by defendant's outrageous conduct. Simo v. Union of Needletrades, Indus. & Textile Employees, Southwest Dist. Council, 322 F.3d 602 (9th Cir. 2003).

Actual malice or malice in fact, that is, malice which has its foundation in ill will and is evidenced by an attempt wrongfully to vex, injure, or annoy another person, is essential to any recovery of punitive or exemplary damages. Clugston v. Garretson, 103 Cal. 441, 37 P. 469 (1894); Childers v. San Jose Mercury Printing & Pub. Co., 105 Cal. 284, 38 P. 903 (1894); Westerfield v. Scripps, 119 Cal. 607, 51 P. 958 (1898); Hearne v. De Young, 132 Cal. 357, 64 P. 576 (1901); Davis v. Hearst, 160 Cal. 143, 116 P. 530 (1911); Scott v. Times-Mirror Co., 181 Cal. 345, 184 P. 672, 12 A.L.R. 1007 (1919); Clark v. McClurg, 215 Cal. 279, 9 P.2d 505, 81 A.L.R. 908 (1932); Finney v. Lockhart, 35 Cal. 2d 161, 217 P.2d 19 (1950).

As a rule, punitive damages cannot be founded on negligence. (See Davis vs. Hearst) However, the wanton and reckless publishing of a libel in a newspaper, in utter disregard of whether it is true or false, may be considered as tantamount to malice and thus sufficient basis for the award of punitive damages. Graybill v. De Young, 140 Cal. 323, 73 P. 1067 (1903).


Whether actual malice exists so as to support an award of punitive damages is an issue of fact to be determined by the jury. (See Childers, supra)
Under principles established by the United States Supreme Court, when defamatory statements concern an issue of public or general interest, no punitive damages may be awarded either to a public or a private person plaintiff without a showing of the type of actual or constitutional malice necessary to support an action for defamation by a public official or public figure. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 99 S. Ct. 1635, 60 L. Ed. 2d 115, 4 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2575, 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 822, 27 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1 (1979); Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789, 1 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1633 (1974); Khawar v. Globe Intern., Inc., 19 Cal. 4th 254, 19 Cal. 4th 1073a, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 178, 965 P.2d 696, 26 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2505 (1998).

For purposes of this rule, actual malice is defined as knowledge of falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth. Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., 48 Cal. 3d 711, 257 Cal. Rptr. 708, 771 P.2d 406, 16 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1625 (1989).

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Paradise's assumptions are based upon her very limited view of things Say's you? I have a limited view about you, not everything.

and her even more limited knowledge of the legal field. How would you know? Just because you are an idiot doesn't make us all on your level.

Her idiocy is exceeded only by the stupidity of anyone who would listen to her. Just about everyone on this forum has said that about you, and to you. Try and use your own words, not words that have been directed AT you.

Paradise, you should not be so afraid to do some research before YOU answer questions here. Again, you have been told this numerous times.

It MIGHT prevent you from offering incorrect information on such things as home inspections, DUIs in Wisconsin, Civil Procedure in Federal Court, the high risk aspect of writing to the PACER people, partition, etc., etc., etc.

I've made errors, and I take responsibility for them. You we're asked to site legal authority for your statements, not only on this thread but many others, and you can't. Funny how you then ask SJ or YAG to site it.I have to pity someone like you, (well I laugh at you as well), for coming here solely to get negative attention from others.

How many times do you have to be proven wrong at a posters expense?

Having said that, no YAG, I am not now and never have been in law school. I don't even think you made it through High School. I think your still trying to figure out why someone slandered you on a message board.

That said, I was responding to YAG, not you. I have now responded to your idiotic ramblings and I have no intention of wasting any more internet space bantering with a stupid moron.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to state that legal authority.

 

[meganproser]

SJ and Stephenk we may not all be on the same page as to what I have been asserting.

I was speaking of SOME intentional torts, not all or any intentional tort. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that.

What I said was, “It is possible to “accidentally” commit an intentional tort...”

and, “...you can commit an intentional TORT (not an intentional ACT), by accident. An intentional tort does not have to be based upon an intentional ACT.”

and, “A person who does not recognize that duty, who is completely ignorant of it, could EASILY breach that duty without intending to harm anyone. I would call this an accident or an unintentional infliction of harm. A person who was aware of his duty but who really believed he was relaying true facts or who mistakenly relayed true facts but implicated the wrong person, has also unintentionally breached his duty.”

Although the above comments were written in the context of a discussion on defamation, I must admit that taken individually and out of that context, there was the potential for misunderstanding. My apologies.

OP’s situation involves defamation, not IIED. The IT’s I was referring to were the IT’s of defamation and invasion of privacy.

Although these torts are always listed as intentional torts, they are actually “hybrids” and “intention” is not an element of such torts unless the plaintiff is a public figure.

The case below does a good job of explaining the issue of insuring people for these torts, as well as explaining how someone might unintentionally commit the intentional tort of defamation.

http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/7th/002576.html

Starting around paragraph 9....

“...exclusion is not of intentional torts as such (nor is defamation an intentional tort in any simple sense), but of tortuous conduct in which there is an intent to injure or an expectation of injuring.”

“...defamation is often not intended or expected to injure anyone.”

“So intent to injure or expectation of injuring is not an element of the tort
of defamation...”

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Lucky me, I got notified of this response through my E-mail. I will now be unsubscribing to this thread, as shaking my head this bad may cause brain damage.

(QUOTE)I was speaking of SOME intentional torts, not all or any intentional tort. Perhaps I should have been clearer on that.(QUOTE)

There should be a board game named after Megan.

"but, but, but...."

 

[Kerri K]

Paradise's assumptions are based upon her very limited view of things and her even more limited knowledge of the legal field. Her idiocy is exceeded only by the stupidity of anyone who would listen to her.

LOL...guess I'm not the only one who has a low opinion of Paridise lost.

 

[ENASNI]

umm

LOL...guess I'm not the only one who has a low opinion of Paridise lost.

She's got her own fan club... you just have not been around enough to know.
That the points in Megans favor are in the minuses --some hundreds for ineptitude it trying to know the law.
While Paradise. is +++ in delving out the bullcrap.
so... If I do the math..
I am a fan of Paradise.
Have a nice day

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

She's got her own fan club... you just have not been around enough to know.
That the points in Megans favor are in the minuses --some hundreds for ineptitude it trying to know the law.
While Paradise. is +++ in delving out the bullcrap.
so... If I do the math..
I am a fan of Paradise.
Have a nice day

Thanks , I feel the love. (Shouldn't say that, Magpie may be watching).

I think this guy really thinks I care. [/B] [/I]

Did you mean delving through the bullcrap?

 

[ENASNI]

you know what I mean

Thanks , I feel the love. (Shouldn't say that, Magpie may be watching).

I think this guy really thinks I care. [/B] [/I]

Magpie be gone... Its okay... The normal woman are back. (jeesh look over your shoulders twice on that one... I haven't checked the "new posts" yet
Who cares if he cares.
He is smegma. or my daughters favorite word... buttcheese.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Thanks , I feel the love. (Shouldn't say that, Magpie may be watching).

I think this guy really thinks I care. [/B] [/I]

Magpie be gone... Its okay... The normal woman are back. (jeesh look over your shoulders twice on that one... I haven't checked the "new posts" yet
Who cares if he cares.
He is smegma. or my daughters favorite word... buttcheese.

You are on notice I have stolen the phrase "Buttcheese" and will use it often with much pride.

 

[meganproser]

That the points in Megans favor are in the minuses --some hundreds for ineptitude it trying to know the law.

INSANE, please cite just a few of the "hundreds" of points you claim I've lost for ineptitude. In other words, please clarify your ridiculous statement.

I don't go around making wild baseless statements about you, though it would be easy enough to do so, and I don't know why you would do so to me.