Legal Opinion – Orellana & Associates

Prepared for: MyFacebookSpaceNews.com

Position: Defendant

Accusation: Libel per se ($5 million in damages)

Plaintiff: Will Simmons

Summary: MyFacebookSpaceNews.com [client] is accused by the plaintiff of libel per se (read the free dictionary's definition) after the news site published the report of an accident in which he was involved. The plaintiff claims that the report falsely claimed that he was driving drunk and that he was stupid.

The report included the following two sentences which are subject of the libel:

                “Ruggiero said that the third motorist was arrested on suspicion of

                drunken driving and faces “more very serious charges.””

                (Ruggiero is a New York Police Sgt.)

                 ““It’s a tragedy,” Hubier said. “All I can say is that it’s a damn tragedy. Whoever 

                   was driving the  van was too much in a rush. I think people like that guy are 
                   just too stupid to know when it’s unsafe to drive.””

                   (Hubier was a passerby)

Legal Opinion:

In libel accusations the plaintiff is responsible for proving that damage was done. In order to do so, he has to prove the six elements listed below. The defendant should seek ways to invalidate each of his claims.

We have reviewed the case and are of the opinion that:

1. Publication:

• The news report was clearly published on an online source.
• Even though the report quoted third parties, the republication rule states that the reporter is responsible for the published libel.
• Therefore, we cannot advice our client to use this element in his defense.

2. Identification:

• The plaintiff´s name has been published, along with other identifying information.
• Therefore, we cannot advice our client to use this element in his defense.

3. Fault:

• The court will name the plaintiff a "private citizen."
• Private citizens are only required to prove negligence (read the Free Dictionary's definition) as a standard of fault.
• Simmons has enough elements to prove negligence:
• Enough sources were not used to verify that he was driving drunk, nor that he is stupid:
• Drunk-driving claim source– a police officer who explained he was arrested under suspicion of drunk driving.
• Stupid claim source – a passerby who saw the accident
• Sources were not credible:
• Drunk- driving claim– the police officer said that Simmons was arrested under “suspicion of drunken driving”, however, the news site did not verify that he was in fact charged.
• Stupid claim- the passerby did not know or meet Simmons. The news site should have not used her as a source.
• Simmons will most likely be able to clear the requisite of proving fault. Therefore, we advice our client to different element to present their defense.

4. Injury:

• The plaintiff is required to verify that he was in fact injured in some way by the publication.
• He could claim two types of damages:
• Compensatory Damages (read the Free Dictionary's definition) – he will need to demonstrate that his reputation was damaged and/or that he suffered as a result of the news report.
• Special Damages (read the Free Dictionary's definition)- in the case that he lost his position as president of SADD, he could claim special damages (his current standing in the organization has yet to be verified).
• Therefore, we advice our client to wait to see what injuries the plaintiff presents.
• An opinion will be presented to our client, once this is known.

5. Falsity:

• The plaintiff is responsible for proving that the statements are false, rather than the defendant proving that it isn’t.
• To prove falsity, the plaintiff will need to:
• Prove that he was not drunk when the accident occurred (with police reports, alcohol tests, etc), and
• Prove that he is not stupid (IQ test, etc).
• Therefore, we advice our client to wait to see how the plaintiff proves falsity and what the results are.
• An opinion will be presented to our client, once the plaintiff has presented his evidence.

6. Defamation

• The plaintiff is suing for libel per se (as opposed to libel by interpretation)
• We have revised the news report and concluded that it does not directly claim that Simmons was drunk, nor that he is stupid:
• The police officer said that Simmons was arrested under suspicion of drunk driving, but never said that he was in fact drunk.
• The quoted passerby said that “people like that guy are just too stupid”, she never said that Simmons was stupid but rather that people who are similar are stupid.

Conclusion: It is our opinion that the plaintiff lacks sufficient argument to prove our client guilty of defamation. Of the six elements that he needs to prove in order to win the case, three will be simple, one of his counsel’s ability to argue, one will depend on scientific results, and the last one will be almost impossible to prove.