INTEREST AND DUTY IN RELATION TO QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE
Jones, Harold A.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by3
- 1975Sindorf v. Jacron Sales Co. Md. Ct. Spec. App.
- 1970Aku v. Lewis Haw.
- 1944Díaz de la Torre v. Porto Rico Ry., Light & Power Co. P.R.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
From the standpoint of the civil law of defamation it is perfectly. permissible to say what one pleases of a man when the subject of the charge is the only person present. To make the same communication to others, however, may be to invite a lawsuit; and the difference between idle gossip and legitimate interest is often the determining factor in ascertaining liability. If Smith calls Brown a thief, they two being alone, Smith cannot be held liable. If Mrs. Smith is present, he may still be immune.
If the statement is made in a lodge meeting, Smith still might have a good defense, but if we add a reporter to the meeting and a subsequent publication of events in a newspaper, Brown may have a good cause of action against one of the parties for the defamation. What is the difference in these circumstances?