Defamation as a Cause of Action in Alabama

Defamation is a legal claim that arises when someone makes a false statement that harms another person’s reputation. In Alabama, the law recognizes this as a cause of action, meaning a person who has been defamed may bring a lawsuit in court. To succeed, the plaintiff must prove four key elements, each of which plays an important role in determining whether the claim is valid.

A False and Defamatory Statement

The first requirement is that the defendant made a statement about the plaintiff that was both false and defamatory. A false statement is one that is not true, while a defamatory statement is one that tends to harm a person’s reputation by exposing them to public hatred, ridicule, or contempt. For example, accusing someone of committing a crime they did not commit would qualify as both false and defamatory. Truth, however, is always a complete defense to defamation, so if the statement is accurate, the claim cannot succeed.

An Unprivileged Communication to a Third Party

The second element requires that the statement be communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, and that the communication was not privileged. This means that if the statement is made only to the plaintiff, no defamation claim can arise. The law also recognizes certain privileges where statements are protected, such as those made during judicial proceedings. Outside of those limited situations, however, repeating a false and damaging statement to even one other person can satisfy this requirement.

Fault Amounting at Least to Negligence

The third element involves the defendant’s state of mind. Alabama law requires that the defendant acted with at least negligence in making or sharing the statement. Negligence in this context means failing to exercise reasonable care to ensure the statement was true. In some cases, such as those involving public figures, the standard may be higher, requiring proof of actual malice, meaning the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Actionable Per Se or Proof of Special Harm

Finally, the plaintiff must show that the statement is legally actionable. Some statements are considered so inherently damaging that they are actionable without further proof of harm, such as accusations of criminal conduct or statements that attack someone’s professional reputation. This is known as being actionable per se. In other situations, known as actionable per quod, the plaintiff must show actual harm, such as lost income, emotional distress, or damage to business relationships.

Conclusion

Defamation law in Alabama balances the right to protect one’s reputation with the right to free speech. To bring a successful claim, a plaintiff must show a false and harmful statement, its communication to someone else, fault on the part of the defendant, and that the statement is legally actionable. By breaking the claim into these elements, courts ensure that only truly harmful falsehoods lead to liability, while protecting open discussion and the exchange of ideas.

Find the Law

“The elements of a cause of action for defamation are: 1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; 2) an unprivileged communication of that statement to a third party; 3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the defendant; and 4) either action-ability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication of the statement. Restatement 2d of Torts § 558 (1977).” McCaig v. Talladega Pub. Co., 544 So. 2d 875, 877 (Ala. 1989).

“‘To establish a prima facie case of defamation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was at least negligent, see Mead Corp. v. Hicks, 448 So.2d 308 (Ala. 1983); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558, § 580B (1977), in publishing a false and defamatory statement to another concerning the plaintiff, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558, which is either actionable without having to prove special harm (actionable per se) or actionable upon allegations and proof of special harm (actionable per quod). Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558; see also Albert Miller Co. v. Corte, 107 F.2d 432 (5th Cir. 1939), cert. denied, Corte v. Albert Miller Co., 309 U.S. 688, 60 S.Ct. 890, 84 L.Ed. 1031 (1940).’” Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2003).