Is a person required to demonstrate actual harm in order to sue for defamation?

In Texas, a person is not required to demonstrate actual harm to sue for defamation. Texas courts have generally held that a plaintiff does not need to prove actual injury to recover damages in a defamation case. This is due to the fact that some harm from defamation is virtually impossible to measure. The law recognizes that a person’s reputation and good name are valuable commodities, and that harm suffered from a defamatory statement can be permanent. While Texas law does not require the plaintiff to prove actual harm, they must still prove that the statement was false and that it was made with the intent or reckless disregard of the truth. Additionally, they must prove that the statement caused or is likely to cause damage to their reputation or financial interests. Despite not needing to prove actual damage, the Supreme Court of Texas has noted that a finding of actual damage can be evidence that the statement was defamatory. This means that proving actual harm can be helpful in a defamation lawsuit, even if it is not required.

Related FAQs

How do you prove that a statement is false?
Is a person allowed to use parody as a defense in a defamation lawsuit?
What is the difference between defamation per se and defamation per quod?
Can a person be sued for defamation if the statement was made in an email?
Are threats considered defamation?
How do you calculate damages in a defamation case?
Is an opinion protected by defamation law?
How does defamation law differ from state to state?
Is an apology considered a defense to a defamation claim?
How do defamation laws vary from state to state?

Is a person required to demonstrate actual harm in order to sue for defamation?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts