Humorous Lawsuit

[PedroDaGr8]

Came across this, this evening. So a guy has gotten (or is getting) a divorce, and see's his ex-wife in a restaurant and loudly calls her a whore. She sues him for slander.


Without giving away the verdict (which I don't quite understand) the decision of the appeal generated these great quotes:

Factually, this is indeed a close and difficult case. The findings of fact made by the trial justice are clear and unequivocal that the plaintiff fit the definition of the defamatory term applied to her.

There's no question in the [c]ourt's mind, as suggested by Mr. Keough, that she was not of virtuous character and that she perhaps fit all of those descriptions of a whore that was given to the jury.

In other words, the legal system just told a woman "You's a ho"

http://law.justia.com/cases/rhode-island/supreme-court/1995/654-a-2d-1212.html

[suncat05]

Wow! The stuff you see & hear in a courtroom...........

[Darrell KSR]

If you get a chance, read that opinion. The Judge did a very nice job of laying out the various ways she met the definition of "whore," factually, definitionally, and legally.

[jgirl]

That was a good read!

[badrose]

somehow the use of "let sleeping dogs lie" come to mind.

[CitizenBBN]

If you get a chance, read that opinion. The Judge did a very nice job of laying out the various ways she met the definition of "whore," factually, definitionally, and legally.

Read most of it, did do some skimming. interesting how that was laid out, also how RI law allows you to get damages even if the statement is true if it's said with malicious intent. Huh? Seems rather odd to me.

Agree completely with the reversal on punitive damages.

Good find Pedro. very interesting. and funny. Judges not just defining "whore" but two different courts ruling she is one. lol.

[Darrell KSR]

CBBN, I don't know if the law is the same in Alabama as their law (i.e., I don't know what my own law is in this area), but I can analogize it fairly well, I think.

There's a tort called invasion of privacy in most states. It's a little along the defamation line of cases, like this one is, but there, revealing private information about someone, even if truthful, is actionable. We have rights to certain privacy. If your evening activities involve bananas, an orangutan, WD-40 and a crescent wrench, as long as you're not violating any laws, you have the right to your activities within the privacy of your home to be kept private.

I GUESS that this is a little along those lines. I'm on thin ice here, and one of the other guys may want to chime in, but it seems to me that maybe the woman has the right, if you were one of the two or three people in town not to know she fit the legal definition of "whore," to the privacy and non-public dissemination of that information.

It's not a perfect analogy, but I'm not going to continue to bore anyone with the flaws in it I see myself (and perhaps others see as well).

[CitizenBBN]

Makes sense as a privacy issue, I just don't see it as a slander/libel issue. If she'd sued for violation of privacy I can see that thinking for sure.

But I'm not sure how privilege extends in those cases as you describe. If I engage in an activity with someone and they go tell others for that to be actionable I'd think I'd have had to have some expectation of privacy, that they'd keep it to themselves. Sans a signed non-disclosure I doubt that's the standard.

Now if I was doing what I was doing and someone peeked in my windows I totally get it, they invaded my privacy. But if I invite someone in I have no expectation of privacy from them, and I don't know if I have an expectation they'll maintain that privacy that is actionable.

Interesting to think about.

[PedroDaGr8]

According to Wikipedia:
Some U.S. statutes preserve historical common law exceptions to the defense of truth to libel actions. These exceptions were for statements "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or "expose the natural defects of one who is alive"

Maybe D you can explain what "expose the natural defects of one who is alive" means. The wikipedia article links this phrase to the article on privacy law, but I can't figure out HOW those two relate. I can think of several ways to link them but not sure which is right.

By the way, can a mod fix the title of this thread. The fact that it says Humerous instead of Humorous is bugging the crap out of me.

[MickintheHam]

Johnson v. Johnson?