Wja v. Da
210 N.J. 229
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Adams (private plaintiff) sued his uncle for sexual abuse of a minor and defamation among other claims.
- Lopez hearing dismissed the defamation claim on statute-of-limitations grounds; remaining defamation claim proceeded to trial.
- 2002 jury awarded Adams $50,000 for defamation; no malice found; other claims resolved; no appeal filed.
- Adams later posted a website recounting the claims and threatened further action; Anderson sought to enforce judgment.
- 2009 trial court granted summary judgment for Anderson due to lack of proven damages; Appellate Division reversed.
- This Court granted certification to resolve whether presumed damages can apply in private, non-public-concern defamation actions and the vitality of the doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presumed damages vitality in private/private-concern defamation | presumed damages remains viable for private individuals on non-public matters | presumed damages should be abolished or limited | preserved; presumed damages applicable in private/private-concern defamation; only nominal damages when no actual harm shown |
| Matter of public concern threshold in this case | case involves public concern because it touches on justice and internet communications | private dispute; not a matter of public concern | matter not one of public concern; actual malice not required; Darling of Senna does not apply |
| Application of actual malice standard | no malice needed if presumed damages retained in private-concern cases | malice should apply if public concern or media-related context exists | no actual malice requirement here; presumed damages govern unless actual proof of harm is shown |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (establishes actual malice for public officials absent misstatement proof)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) (presumed damages is an oddity of tort law; malice standard governs public concerns)
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985) (state interest supports presumed damages for private defendants on non-public concerns)
- Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publ'g Co., 104 N.J. 125 (1986) (public concern sanitation case; public interest justifies malice standard)
- Senna v. Florimont, 196 N.J. 469 (2008) (refines public concern framework and malice standard in private defamation)
- Turf Lawnmower Repair, Inc. v. Bergen Record Co., 139 N.J. 392 (1995) (public interest in regulated business; malice standard applies to certain public concerns)
- Rocci v. Ecole Secondaire Macdonald-Cartier, 165 N.J. 149 (2000) (public concern determination in non-media defamation context; dignitary damages discussed)
- Sisler v. Gannett Co., 104 N.J. 256 (1986) (public concern inquiry in defamation; malice standard applied when public interest shown)
- Ward v. Zelikovsky, 136 N.J. 516 (1994) (sl. per se damages and public interest considerations described)