Defamation Under Michigan Law
Defamation in Michigan is governed by the common law and consists of two different forms: libel and slander. While legal definitions of these terms may differ between jurisdictions, for the purposes of the current discussion the terms will be defined in accordance with Michigan case law.
Tripp v. Sledz (1936) is the seminal case in Michigan to establish the definition of libel. In that case, the Michigan Supreme Court stated: "Libel is the publication of words which naturally tend to injure another in respect to his office, profession, trade or business….[e]xpressions which tend to prejudice him in his occupation, or to detract from his character in the eyes of persons engaged in it, or in any way to lessen his profits, are libelous."
Importantly, for a statement to be considered legally defamatory, it must not be true. A successful libel plaintiff must also show that the statement proffered as evidence was not a mere opinion. A Maryland case addressing defamatory statements succinctly summarizes the distinction between opinion and fact: "[a]nalysis of the words used in context would show that [they] were the expression of [the defendant’s] opinion of the plaintiff and not a statement of fact." The opinion statement must, however, be a statement of something that carries with it a false implication of objective fact . The suggestion that the false statement of opinion is tantamount to a statement of objective fact must be a provable fact itself. In other words, the opinion cannot be simply understood as an opinion but must be considered by a reasonable person in the circumstance — and borne out by the context — as something that has a factual basis.
Slander, while based similarly on the malicious intent of the speaker, is created by the oral utterances of defamatory words. The considerations for evaluating whether or not a statement is defamatory are the same as are used for libel, but the arguments are made based upon the text of the statement being challenged in light of the circumstances surrounding it, rather than the language of the publication.
Broadly speaking, the difference between slander and libel in the context of Michigan law is generally not as clean-cut as the definitions provided above imply. Where one defendant may make a public statement slandering the plaintiff, and a private email exchange then proceeds between the defendant and a third party that is otherwise unprivileged, the former would be considered "slander" and could constitute libel per se (per quod) action or a libel action; the latter e-mail could otherwise be actional as a libel claim.
Elements of Defamation in Michigan
The legal elements required to establish a defamation case in Michigan are similar to federal common law in that the plaintiff must show a false statement published with fault that caused damage. The Michigan Supreme Court in Worrall v. Thomson Newspapers (1994), 447 Mich 451, 458, 527 NW2d 29 ("Worrall I") constricted the federal common law definitions laid out in New York Times Co v Sullivan, 376 US 254; 84 S Ct 710; 11 L Ed 2d 686 (1964) to include "actual malice" and "express constitutional requirement," respectively, in the statutory definition of "fault." The statutory limitation removes the knowledge standard from actual malice and replaces it with a "recklessness" standard. In regards to Michigan law, the statutory definition of "fault" is defined at MCL 600.2907(6) as a "standard of fault, however evidenced, including negligence, gross negligence, actual malice … or constitutional actual malice, which is not limited to knowledge of falsity or disregard for the truth of falsity." This definition of "fault" requires a state of mind somewhere between that of negligence and intentional conduct falling short of knowledge and therefore creates "a subjective standard of recklessness" (Worrall I, supra). A plaintiff must still prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant made a statement of fact that is untrue, but instead of proving that the defendant published the statement with a high degree of awareness, the plaintiff must show that the defendant published false statements that were made with "reckless disregard" for the truth.
Affirmative Defenses to Defamation
There are several common defenses to a claim of defamation in Michigan. The defenses depend, however, on how the statement was made and whether the person making the defamatory remark is a public official, public figure, or private party. The defenses may include the following:
Truth – Truth is generally an absolute defense to a defamation claim in Michigan. The statement does not have to be completely true, it only has to be substantially true. If the statement is true, the claim will fail regardless of the plaintiff’s perception.
Fair Comment – A statement made as part of a legitimate opinion or free discussion of public issues is generally protected as free speech and may not form the basis of a defamation claim in Michigan.
Justification – The defendant has justification for making the defamatory statement because it was made in good faith and was for the purpose of protecting the welfare of the public.
Privilege – A communication that occurs on a recognized privileged occasion is generally immune from a defamation claim in Michigan. Six common examples of recognized privileged occasions are:
The privilege provides a shield for the speaker from liability whether the statement was made maliciously. However, once the statement is made to a party who does not have a legitimate reason for receiving the statement, the privilege may no longer exist for purposes of civil liability.
Michigan Statute of Limitations on Defamations
In Michigan, the statute of limitations for filing a defamation lawsuit is one year. The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the one-year limitations period in MCL 600.5805(10) applies to claims for damages because of injury to reputation and loss of social standing. McClintock v Detroit News Inc, 484 Mich 69, 72; 751 NW2d 231 (2008). The statute of limitations begins to run from the date of publication. D’Angelo v Stinson, 244 Mich App 170, 173; 625 NW2d 575 (2000); See also Mielk v Gibbons, 66 Mich App 130, 132; 238 NW2d 404 (1975). A claimant will not be allowed to extend the filing time by showing that he did not discover the publication within the limitation period. Id. "A claim accrues when the wrong upon which the action is based was completed." Mannix v Dobrowolski, 312 Mich App 400, 408; 879 NW2d 768 (2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "A cause of action accrues at the time of the injury if the fact of injury is known or should have been known." Dobronski & Sons, Inc v Kitnage Engineering, Inc, 286 Mich App 529, 531; 780 NW2d 494 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Remarkable Michigan Defamation Cases
In addition to numerous defamation cases that have emerged from the auto industry, other notable Michigan defamation cases have involved public officials or public figures, or have had other unique circumstances. In triggers the triggering event for the cause of action for defamation of a private figure, the question of whether and to what extent the subject matter is of general public interest might well be open to dispute. If both parties could pull up a chair to sit at the table that the works of an artist might be debated, there might be more than one opinion as to the merits and recognition of the artistry.
For example, in LePlatt v Macomb County, 120 Mich App 442, 329 N.W.2d 449 (1982), an unsuccessful mayoral candidate brought defamation claims against a newspaper that ran a series of articles characterizing his family as self-serving while placing himself in a position that would benefit financially from the sale of property purchased for the construction of a freeway . As a result, the mayoral candidate asserted that he suffered damages to his reputation. The jury found in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded damages in the amount of $2.5 million. However, the court reversed the decision and remanded for judgment not against the publication, but instead against the public official who had written a letter denying the sale of property. Id. Although not mentioned in the excerpt that appears in the reporter’s series, the case is interesting because of its eventual outcome that the public official would be the party against whom a judgment was entered. Ordinarily, as a matter of course, courts agree that the defamation actions can be brought against both the purveyor of a statement and the person from whose mouth the statement originated.
Ways Defamation Affects Individuals and Businesses
Impact on Individuals and Businesses
Both individuals and businesses can be severely impacted by a defamation claim. A person whose character, health or reputation has been verbally or in the media damaged can file a defamation lawsuit in Michigan against the person who made the derogatory statement. Similarly, a successful defamation case in Michigan may allow a business owner to recovery potential income loss due to its damaged reputation as well as any physical harm to the person or their business. While each case is different, there are many ways an individual or a business may be affected by defamatory statements:
Reputational damage: Being falsely accused of malice or illegal conduct can severely harm a person’s or business reputation. Long-lasting effects of reputational damage can be difficult to recover from and often prove challenging to overcome even with a victory in a defamation lawsuit.
Financial damage: In some cases, losses can result in thousands of dollars in actual damage awards due to provable income loss and harm. Additionally, plaintiff’s may be entitled to punitive damages, which is when a court awards money beyond any loss caused if it sees the defendant’s behavior as particularly harmful or malicious.
What to Do When Accused or a Victim of Defamation
If you believe you are the victim of defamation, you should collect any evidence you have and immediately consult an experienced defamation and libel law attorney. It may be too early to file a lawsuit, but the sooner you retain an attorney, the sooner you will be protected.
The key steps to take as the victim of defamation are:
Collect evidence of the false claim, including screenshots, emails, social media posts (information about the post, including screenshots if possible), user handles, and any other information or communications.
Make sure to save any screenshot of the false information that is published about you on websites or social media.
The accused for their part is best served by consulting with an attorney before the publication is made, so the attorney can advise them on how to proceed. After the publication is made, it is still useful to review the circumstances with an attorney. We often work with defendants to help them understand what they have posted and how the against them. It is sometimes possible to engage in negotiation and to avoid litigation.
Hiring A Michigan Defamation Attorney
Defamation cases can be complicated and challenging and Michigan is difficult for even experienced lawyers. That is why it is vital to have an attorney who has a firm grasp of the ins and outs of Michigan defamation law, to ensure you will receive proper compensation for your damages.
We do not represent everyone. If we can we will gladly represent you in your defamation case. But we need to be upfront, we will turn down a case if we do not think either you or your case have merit . We focus on quality cases with the potential to make positive impacts on our society. We seek out cases that we think will make a difference when we win.
We will never take on a case that we do not want to bring to trial if we need to. There are no guarantees but we have had great results in Michigan courtrooms. Hiring an experienced defamation lawyer to represent you in Michigan is very important as Michigan is a very picky state with a lot of pitfalls that can be avoided by hiring a seasoned lawyer.