362 P.3d 919
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Westmont Mirador, LLC and Terry Foote sue Joshua Miller and Brad Nelson for defamation based on online comments.
- District court enters default against Miller and Nelson and finds the statements defamed Westmont per se.
- District court awards Westmont nominal damages of $1 and denies compensatory/punitive damages.
- Westmont appeals arguing defamation per se damages are presumed and should be more than nominal to deter future harm.
- On review, the Utah Court of Appeals affirms the nominal damages award, clarifying damages in per se defamation need not be substantial.
- Court explains nominal damages may be appropriate where defaming matter is minor or plaintiff’s bad character, with no proof of serious harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does defamation per se require substantial damages? | Westmont contends damages are presumed and should be substantial to deter. | Miller/Nelson argue no specific damages must be awarded beyond what the court deems appropriate. | Damages in per se defamation are presumed but not amount-specific; nominal damages may be awarded. |
| Was the nominal damages award proper after a default judgment for per se defamation? | Westmont seeks damages beyond nominal due to presumptive harm. | Defendants contend the court need not award more than nominal where harm is not proven apart from default. | Nominal damages may be appropriate; court need not award substantial damages in per se defamation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baum v. Gillman, 667 P.2d 41 (Utah 1983) (defamation per se & damages framework in Utah)
- Nichols v. Daily Reporter Co., 83 P. 573 (Utah 1905) (damages presumed in defamation per se)
- DeBry v. Godbe, 992 P.2d 979 (Utah 1999) (per se defamation presumes damages; plaintiff need not prove damages)