What is the difference between defamation per se and defamation per quod?

Defamation law is used to protect individuals from false statements that damage their reputation. In the state of Minnesota, there are two main types of defamation: per se and per quod. Defamation per se is a false statement that is so harmful that you do not need to provide proof of actual damages in order to sue. Examples of this type of defamation include stating that someone has an infectious disease, has committed a crime, or is not honest in their business dealings. Defamation per quod is a false statement that is not as obviously harmful as per se defamation. This type of defamation requires the person alleging defamation to prove actual damages. Examples of defamation per quod include stating that someone is lazy or unprofessional. The main difference between these two types of defamation is that defamation per se does not require proof of actual harm, while defamation per quod does. Additionally, defamation per se is more likely to be treated as a criminal offense in some instances. Therefore, it is important to understand the difference between these two types of defamation before considering pursuing a legal claim.

Related FAQs

Does a publisher or website have liability for third-party comments posted to its site?
Are statements of opinion considered defamatory?
What is the difference between defamation per se and defamation per quod?
Are Internet service providers held liable for defamatory content published on their networks?
Is an apology considered a defense to a defamation claim?
Can a person be held responsible for defamatory statements made by someone else?
Is it possible for a person to retract a statement before filing a defamation lawsuit?
Are threats considered defamation?
Are comments made on online forums considered defamation?
Are blogs considered “publishers” under defamation law?

What is the difference between defamation per se and defamation per quod?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts