What Constitutes Defamation Under Nevada Law?

Defamation is a legal term referring to a false statement presented as a fact that causes injury or harm to the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation. Under Nevada law, defamation can be divided into two categories: libel and slander. Libel refers to defamatory statements made in written or printed form, while slander refers to spoken defamatory statements. Understanding what constitutes defamation under Nevada law is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants in a defamation case.

Elements of Defamation in Nevada

To successfully claim defamation in Nevada, a plaintiff must prove the following four elements:

1. A False and Defamatory Statement: The statement made must be false. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation claims. If the statement is true, even if it is damaging to the person’s reputation, it is not considered defamation under Nevada law. The statement must also be defamatory, meaning it must tend to harm the reputation of the plaintiff in such a way that it lowers them in the estimation of the community or deters third parties from associating with them.
   
2. Unprivileged Publication to a Third Party: The defamatory statement must be made to someone other than the plaintiff. If the defamatory statement is not communicated to a third party, it does not meet the criteria for defamation. For instance, if the defendant made the statement in a private conversation that was not overheard by anyone else, it would not be considered defamation. Additionally, the communication must be “unprivileged,” meaning it is not protected by certain legal privileges like those in judicial or legislative proceedings.
   
3. Fault Amounting to at Least Negligence: The standard of fault depends on the status of the person defamed. For private individuals, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with at least negligence in making the defamatory statement. In contrast, public figures or public officials must show that the defendant acted with “actual malice,” meaning the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This distinction is derived from the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and applies under Nevada law.
   
4. Damages: The plaintiff must show that the defamatory statement caused them actual harm, such as financial loss, damage to reputation, mental anguish, or other personal damages. Some statements, known as “defamation per se,” are considered so inherently harmful that damages are presumed. Under Nevada law, defamation per se includes statements that falsely accuse someone of a crime, assert that a person has a contagious disease, allege professional incompetence, or make claims that directly harm a person’s business or trade.
   

Defamation Per Se vs. Defamation Per Quod in Nevada

Nevada law distinguishes between “defamation per se” and “defamation per quod.”

• Defamation Per Se: Certain statements are considered so harmful that damages are presumed, and the plaintiff does not need to prove actual damage to their reputation. Common examples include accusations of criminal conduct, allegations of a contagious disease, claims affecting someone’s professional reputation, or suggestions of sexual misconduct.
  
• Defamation Per Quod: This refers to statements that are not obviously defamatory and require the plaintiff to present additional facts to show how the statement is defamatory. In these cases, the plaintiff must prove actual damages. For example, if a statement is not defamatory on its face but becomes so when considering additional facts, it would fall under defamation per quod.
  

Defenses to Defamation in Nevada

There are several defenses that a defendant can use against a defamation claim under Nevada law:

1. Truth: The most common defense against a defamation claim is that the statement was true. If the defendant can prove that the defamatory statement is true, the defamation claim will fail.
   
2. Opinion: Statements of opinion are generally not considered defamatory because they are not statements of fact. However, merely labeling a statement as an opinion does not automatically protect it from defamation claims. The key question is whether the statement can be proven true or false. If it is an opinion that implies false facts, it could still be considered defamatory.
   
3. Privilege: Some statements are protected by absolute or qualified privilege. Absolute privilege applies in certain situations, such as statements made during judicial proceedings, legislative debates, or official government communications. Qualified privilege applies in situations where the defendant had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the statement to someone who had an interest in hearing it, provided that the statement was made without malice.
   
4. Retraction: Under Nevada law, a defendant may mitigate damages by publishing a retraction of the defamatory statement. The retraction must be timely and made in a manner that is as prominent as the original defamatory statement. A proper retraction can reduce the amount of damages a plaintiff can recover.
   
5. Consent: If the plaintiff consented to the publication of the defamatory statement, this can serve as a defense to a defamation claim. The consent must be informed and voluntary.
   

Statute of Limitations for Defamation in Nevada

In Nevada, the statute of limitations for filing a defamation lawsuit is two years from the date of the publication of the defamatory statement. If a lawsuit is not filed within this period, the claim is barred, and the plaintiff will not be able to seek damages for defamation. It is important for plaintiffs to be aware of this timeline to ensure their legal rights are protected.

Public Figures and Limited-Purpose Public Figures

Under Nevada law, different standards apply to defamation claims brought by public figures versus private individuals. Public figures, such as celebrities, politicians, or individuals who have gained prominence in certain areas, must prove “actual malice” to succeed in a defamation claim. This means they must demonstrate that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Limited-purpose public figures are individuals who have voluntarily thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved. For such individuals, the actual malice standard applies only to statements related to public controversy.

Damages in Defamation Cases in Nevada

Nevada law allows plaintiffs to recover several types of damages in defamation cases:

1. Compensatory Damages: These damages compensate the plaintiff for the actual harm suffered due to the defamation, such as lost income, medical expenses for mental anguish, or damage to reputation.
   
2. Punitive Damages: If the defendant acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth, the court may award punitive damages. These damages are intended to punish the defendant for their conduct and deter similar conduct in the future.
   
3. Nominal Damages: In some cases, the court may award nominal damages if the plaintiff has proven that the defamation occurred but cannot prove actual damages.
   

Drag Queens from “Judge Steve Harvey” Sue Each Other(Opens in a new browser tab)

Defamation under Nevada law is a complex area that involves balancing the right to free speech with the right to protect one’s reputation. The key elements that constitute defamation include a false and defamatory statement, publication to a third party, fault amounting to at least negligence, and actual damages. Defamation cases in Nevada require careful navigation of both statutory and case law, making it essential for anyone involved in a defamation dispute to seek knowledgeable legal counsel from a Las Vegas defamation lawyer.