Does a defendant have to prove truth in order to avoid liability for defamation?

In Texas, a defendant in a defamation case does not have to prove the truth of a statement in order to avoid liability. This is known as the defense of truth. Rather, the plaintiff, or the party bringing the lawsuit, must show that the statement was false in order for the defendant to be held liable. In other words, the plaintiff must prove that the statement is untrue before the defendant will be held legally accountable for any harm the statement caused. Texas does recognize the defense of truth in defamation cases, but it is a difficult defense to establish. Generally speaking, the defendant must prove that the statement was true and must provide evidence to back up its truthfulness. Such evidence can include documents, testimonies from witnesses, and other forms of proof. If the defendant is successful in proving truth, it may be able to avoid liability for defamation or reduce the damages awarded to the plaintiff. However, another way that a defendant may avoid liability for defamation is to argue that the statement was privileged. This means that the statement was part of a conversation or a document that is considered to be confidential or protected by law from being used as evidence in a civil case. Texas does recognize qualified privilege, so if a defendant can successfully prove that the statement was privileged, he or she may avoid liability. Overall, while Texas does recognize the defense of truth, it is not always easy to prove. As such, many defendants choose to argue that the statement was privileged, which may be a more successful defense.

Does a defendant have to prove truth in order to avoid liability for defamation?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts