Defamation in Maryland

What Is Defamation?

What is a Defamatory Statement?

“A defamatory statement is one which tends to expose a person to public scorn, hatred, contempt, or ridicule, thereby discouraging others in the community from having a good opinion of, or from associating or dealing with, that person.” (See Hawks v. Ruby, No. 2098, at *17-18 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 1, 2019); Batson v. Shiflett (1992) 325 Md. 684, 722-23.)

“The test is whether the words, taken in their common and ordinary meaning, in the sense in which they are generally used, are capable of defamatory construction.” (See id.)

Prima Facie Case for Defamation

“In order to establish a prima facie defamation claim under Maryland law, a plaintiff must establish four elements:

that the defendant made a defamatory statement to a third person,
that the statement was false,
that the defendant was legally at fault in making the statement, and
that the plaintiff thereby suffered harm.”

(See Hawks v. Ruby, No. 2098, at *17 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 1, 2019); Offen v. Brenner (2007) 402 Md. 191, 198.)

Burden of Proof and Standard of Review for Defamation

“As to the second element, [a] false statement is one that is not substantially correct. The burden of proving falsity is on the plaintiff. . . Furthermore, minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as the substance, the gist, the sting, of the libelous charge be justified.” (See Hawks v. Ruby, No. 2098, at *18 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 1, 2019); Batson v. Shiflett (1992) 325 Md. 684, 722-23.)

“The third element requires proof that the defendant was at fault based either on negligence or constitutional malice.” (See id; Shapiro v. Massengill (1995) 105 Md. App. 743, 772, cert. denied, 341 Md. 28 (1995).)

“Constitutional malice, often referred to as actual malice, is established by clear and convincing evidence that a statement was made 'with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’” (See Hawks v. Ruby, No. 2098, at *18 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 1, 2019); Batson v. Shiflett (1992) 325 Md. 684, 722-23; New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 279-80.)

“In actions for defamation brought by a public official plaintiff or a public figure plaintiff, he or she must show that the defendant made the false and defamatory statements with actual malice, whereas a private person plaintiff ordinarily need only establish fault under a negligence standard.” (See id; Jacron Sales Co., Inc. v. Sindorf (1976) 276 Md. 580, 584-85; Seley-Radtke v. Hosmane (2016) 450 Md. 468, 489-90.)

Defamation per se v. Defamation per quod

“There is significant overlap between fault and the fourth element of damages. Maryland continues to recognize the distinction between defamation per se and defamation per quod.” (See Hawks v. Ruby, No. 2098, at *18-19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 1, 2019); Hearst Corp. v. Hughes (1983) 297 Md. 112, 125; Shapiro v. Massengill (1995) 105 Md. App. 743, 773.)

“A statement is defamatory per se, when its injurious character is a self-evident fact of common knowledge of which the court takes judicial notice and need not be pleaded or proved.” (See id; Metromedia, Inc. v. Hillman (1979) 285 Md. 161, 163; M & S Furniture v. DeBartolo Corp. (1968) 249 Md. 540, 544.)

“Consequently, harm is presumed and a jury may award general damages for false words that are actionable per se, even in the absence of proof of harm.” (See id; Shapiro v. Massengill (1995) 105 Md. App. 743, 773, 774.)

“In order to recover presumed damages, however, a plaintiff must prove fault under the heightened actual malice standard, even if he or she is a private person. The plaintiff must prove actual damages if the defendant was merely negligent in making the false statement.” (See id.)

“Alternatively, a statement is defamatory per quod where the injurious effect must be established by allegations and proof of special damage and in such cases it is not only necessary to plead and show that the words or actions were defamatory, but it must also appear that such words or conduct caused actual damage.” (See Hawks v. Ruby, No. 2098, at *18-19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 1, 2019); Metromedia, Inc. v. Hillman (1979) 285 Md. 161, 164.)

Recovering Punitive Damages in Defamation Cases

“[A] defamation award in favor of a public figure must meet both federal constitutional standards as well as state law standards with respect to liability and punitive damages. To prevail on liability, a public figure must show by clear and convincing evidence ‘actual malice,’ which the U.S. Supreme Court has defined as knowing or reckless falsity.” (See Riccio v. Morelli, No. 0371-2020, at *1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 20, 2021); Curtis Publishing Co. v. Batts (1967) 388 U.S. 686.)

“To recover punitive damages in a defamation action, a plaintiff, as a matter of federal constitutional law, must also show ‘actual malice’ defined as knowing or reckless falsity.” (See id; Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323.)

“However, as a matter of Maryland common law, a plaintiff in a defamation action cannot recover punitive damages without a showing of knowing falsity, , a standard which the Court of Appeals has also referred to as ‘actual malice.’” (See id; Sele Radtke v. Hosmane (2016) 450 Md. 468, 495-96; LeMarc's Management Corp. v. Valentin (1998) 349 Md. 645.)

“[P]unitive damages are allowable in a defamation case only if the plaintiff meets the heightened actual malice standard, even if the plaintiff is a private person. To be entitled to punitive damages, a plaintiff must establish[ ] that the defendant had actual knowledge that the defamatory statement was false.” Hawks v. Ruby, No. 2098, at *19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 1, 2019)

Dockets for Defamation in Maryland

Sort By

Joseph Foster Bailey vs. Jayda Jones

Filed

May 17, 2024

Status

Active

Court

Anne Arundel County

County

Anne Arundel County, MD

Case #