INTEREST AND DUTY IN RELATION TO QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE

Authors

Harold A. Jones, Of the Detroit, Michigan, Bar

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?

Recommended Citation

Harold A. Jones, INTEREST AND DUTY IN RELATION TO QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE, 22 Mich. L. Rev. 437 (1924).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol22/iss5/4