N.J. Appellate Division Finds Party Defamed Despite Lack of Damages

Image via Wikipedia
In W.J.A. v. D.A. (Docket No. A-0762-09T3), the N.J. Superior Court Appellate Division reversed and remanded a trial judge's dismissal of a plaintiff's defamation claim because he failed to prove damages.


As reported by the Web site of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press ( www.rcfp.org), the Appellate Division addressed the issue of: "whether Internet postings that accuse one of engaging in sexual misconduct are the type of defamatory statements for which damages may be presumed and therefore do not require the aggrieved party to prove actual harm to reputation."


The case initially arose in 1998 when D.A.'s nephew, W.J.A., sued him for allegedly sexually molesting him as a child. D.A. countersued for defamation, among other claims. W.J.A.'s suit was tossed because the statute of limitations had expired, but D.A. prevailed and was awarded damages for defamation and for frivolous litigation.


D.A. subsequently discovered that W.J.A. in 2007 posted on a Web site allegations that his uncle had sexually abused him, and again sued for defamation.  The trial judge found that the statements at issue were defamatory per se, but awarded summary judgment to W.J.A. because D.A. failed to prove damages beyond "individual subjective moral reactions."

The appellate division, however, ruled: "If there has been a wrong, there should be a remedy, and the time-honored approach of allowing such a case to be decided by a jury, which may then assess a proper amount of damages based upon their experience and common sense does not offend us."

In 2000, the N.J. Supreme Court found that in defamation cases that involved the actual malice standard (i.e., public figures, public officials or matters of public concern were raised), plaintiffs must prove actual damages, but left unanswered whether damages may be presumed where private individuals are involved and no issues of public concern are raised.