The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine is a concept that insulates a speaker or publisher from liability for statements made about someone who has no good reputation to protect. The hallmark of a defamation claim is reputational harm. If a person has no reputation to protect, then he or she may be considered “libel-proof.”
If a plaintiff has no reputation to protect, they may be considered ‘libel-proof’
Judge Robert Sack, in his treatise Sack on Defamation: Libel, Slander and Related Problems, describes the doctrine as “a notorious person is without a good name and therefore may not recover for injury to it.” (§2.4.18).
The libel-proof plaintiff doctrine is related to the incremental harm doctrine, which provides that when many true statements accompany a false statement, the incremental harm done by the false statement is negligible.
Some state court decisions refer to two types of libel-proof claims: (1) the issue-specific approach and the (2) incremental harm approach.” (Hudson, 15). Whatever additional labels placed on the doctrine, the essence is that a defamation plaintiff is libel proof if he or she has no good reputation to protect.
Court has said a mobster, other criminals have no good reputation to protect
The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used the doctrine to hold that a mobster had no good reputation to protect in Cardillo v. Doubleday & Co. (1975). Cardillo sued a book publisher for statements made about him by another organized crime figure. The book alleged that Cardillo had fixed horse races and committed other crimes. Cardillo sued for libel, but the federal appeals court rejected his claim, writing that he was “libel-proof” because he was a “habitual criminal.”
Other courts have applied the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine to murderers, convicted thieves, and those with numerous narcotics convictions.
The doctrine should be applied narrowly. “Convicted murderers and certain inveterate criminals are one thing, but applying the doctrine to anyone with a felony on their record would be problematic.” (Hudson, 16).
David L. Hudson, Jr. is a First Amendment Fellow at the Freedom Forum Institute and a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics. He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitledFreedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment(Now You Know Media, 2018). He also is the author of many First Amendment books, includingThe First Amendment: Freedom of Speech(Thomson Reuters, 2012) andFreedom of Speech: Documents Decoded(ABC-CLIO, 2017). This article was published June 2, 2020.
FAQs
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject ...
What is the libel proof plaintiff doctrine? ›
Being libel-proof means, quite simply, that the plaintiff's reputation is so bad that any false statement could not lower that person in the eyes of the community any further. The thought is that such a plaintiff's claim must fail because that plaintiff has suffered no harm as a result of the false statement.
What is the burden of proof that must be met to win a libel case in court? ›
When you are a private individual, you are only required to prove that the defendant was negligent in determining whether the statement at issue was true or not. A public figure, however, is held to a higher standard. Public figures must prove affirmatively that a statement was false.
What is the best defense for libel? ›
Truth is the absolute or complete defense to defamation. The defendant will prevail on a truth defense by establishing simply that the alleged defamatory statement is substantially true, i.e., when the “gist” or “sting” of the alleged defamatory statement is true.
What 3 elements must be proven in order for a plaintiff to win a libel case? ›
Elements of Defamation
The defendant made the defamatory statement to a third party knowing it was false (or they should have known it was false); The defamatory statement was disseminated through a publication or communication; and. The plaintiff's reputation suffered damage or harm.
What must a plaintiff prove to be successful? ›
A plaintiff must prove that the defendant's act or omission caused the plaintiff to be exposed to unreasonable risk of injury and/or harm. In other words, the defendant failed to meet their obligation to the plaintiff and therefore put the plaintiff in harm's way.
What is an example of a libel proof? ›
The book alleged that Cardillo had fixed horse races and committed other crimes. Cardillo sued for libel, but the federal appeals court rejected his claim, writing that he was “libel-proof” because he was a “habitual criminal.”
What percentage of defamation cases are won? ›
Floyd Abrams, a New York lawyer who specializes in representing media organizations, estimates that individuals who sue for libel win about 75 percent of the cases that end up before a jury. But the media succeed in reversing jury verdicts most of the time after they appeal to higher courts.
What must a plaintiff prove before a plaintiff can rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur? ›
“[S]ubmission of the case on the theory of res ipsa loquitur is warranted only when the plaintiff can establish the following elements: (1) the event must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive ...
Why is libel hard to prove? ›
To win a libel suit, a public figure must prove the publisher of the false statements acted with actual malice. Actual malice means that the publisher knew that the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false. This is much harder to prove than negligence.
If the plaintiff is a private figure, the First Amendment does not impose any restriction on the liability standards that states may adopt. Under Illinois law, a private figure plaintiff need only prove that the defendant was negligent in making the defamatory statement to succeed.
Is it worth suing for defamation? ›
Damages in Defamation Cases. The answer is, yes, it is worth it. When a true case of defamation exists, there are damages that are caused as a result. Those damages are compensable through a civil lawsuit, in California and beyond.
What are the three defenses for libel? ›
Common defenses to libel and slander torts (civil wrongs) are summarized below.
- Truth as a Defense to Libel and Slander. ...
- Consent as a Defense to Libel and Slander. ...
- Opinion as a Defense to Libel and Slander. ...
- Defamation and Absolute Privileges. ...
- Defamation and Qualified Privileges.
Winning a defamation case can be challenging but possible with the right legal representation. Don't let false statements damage your reputation or your business.
What must an individual show to prove a claim of libel? ›
Private individuals who sue for libel must prove actual malice in most states. In order to prove identification in a libel suit, plaintiffs must show that a news story identified them clearly by name. A statement must be widely disseminated for a person to sue for libel. A statement may be false but not defamatory.
What must a plaintiff show in order to be successful in a defamation of character lawsuit? ›
The Statement Must Be Harmful
The statement in question must be "injurious" (harmful). Since the purpose of defamation law is to compensate people for damage to their reputations, defamation plaintiffs must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statements.
