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

Is a person allowed to use parody as a defense in a defamation lawsuit?
What are “per se” defamatory statements?
Are there any defenses available to an employer against a defamation claim?
How do you prove that a statement is false?
Can a statement made on a website be considered defamatory?
Does defamation law protect celebrities or public figures?
What is the difference between public and private figures in a defamation claim?
Is an Internet service provider held liable for defamatory content published on its network?
Are comments made on online forums considered defamation?
Are statements made in the media protected by defamation law?

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

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts