43 A.3d 1148
N.J.2012Background
- Private defamation action involving Adams (private plaintiff) vs. Anderson (private figure) arising from alleged past sexual abuse; Internet postings and civil actions followed onset of judgment and post-judgment activity.
- Court examined whether presumed damages apply in private-private, non-public-concern defamation; the trial court granted summary judgment due to lack of proven damages.
- Appellate Division initially held Internet defamation could be libel and questioned presumed damages in private-figure/non-public-concern context.
- Court recognized prior New Jersey and federal defamation standards, including Senna and Dun & Bradstreet, and concluded presumed damages may apply in private/private-concern cases.
- Court held that preserving presumed damages serves dignitary interests and may be used to survive summary judgment and obtain nominal damages; compensatory damages require actual proof of harm.
- Case remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether presumed damages survive in private-private defamation actions | Adams argues presumed damages should be abolished. | Anderson argues presumed damages remain viable in private-private cases. | Presumed damages retain vitality in private-private cases not involving public concern. |
| Whether the matter involves public concern triggering actual malice standard | Adams contends the matter is public concern, requiring actual malice. | Anderson contends it is private concern, not triggering actual malice. | Matter is private concern; actual malice not required for presumed damages. |
| Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for lack of cognizable damages | Adams argues factual dispute on damages exists; summary judgment inappropriate. | Anderson argues no cognizable damages proven; presumed damages should apply. | Trial court erred; summary judgment reversed and remand appropriate. |
| Classification of Internet postings as libel or slander in private defamation | Adams argues Internet postings can be libel with presumed damages. | Anderson disputes categorization; text supports slander per se. | Court notes postings fall under slander per se; no special damages required. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (Supreme Court 1964) (establishes actual malice standard for public figures/concerns)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (Supreme Court 1974) (rejects blanket presumed damages absent actual malice in some contexts)
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (Supreme Court 1985) (upholds presumed damages for private concerns when no public concern)
- Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publ’g Co., 104 N.J. 125 (New Jersey 1986) (examines public concern and malice; defamation damages framework)
- Sisler v. Gannett Co., 104 N.J. 256 (New Jersey 1986) (privacy/public concern considerations in defamation damages)
- Turf Laummower Repair, Inc. v. Bergen Record Co., 139 N.J. 392 (New Jersey 1995) (public interest in certain business activities; malice standard discussion)
- Rocci v. Ecole Secondaire Macdonald-Cartier, 165 N.J. 149 (New Jersey 2000) (public concern determination in non-media defamation; dignitary damages context)
- Senna v. Florimont, 196 N.J. 469 (New Jersey 2008) (refines public concern analysis and malice standard; informs private/private cases)
- Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267 (New Jersey 1973) (timeliness under statute of limitations in pretrial context)
- Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale, 413 N.J. Super. 135 (New Jersey App.Div. 2010) (internet postings can be libel; later affirmed)