Reach us 24/7

Reach us 24/7

MCL § 600.2911 – Libel and slander (exemplary damages limitation)

Table of Contents

Code Details

Chapter 600

Act 236 of 1961

236-1961-29

Exact Statute Text

Click to view the complete statute text

600.2911 Action for libel or slander.

Sec. 2911.

(1) Words imputing a lack of chastity to any female or male are actionable in themselves and subject the person who uttered or published them to a civil action for the slander in the same manner as the uttering or publishing of words imputing the commission of a criminal offense.
(2)(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in actions based on libel or slander the plaintiff is entitled to recover only for the actual damages which he or she has suffered in respect to his or her property, business, trade, profession, occupation, or feelings.
(b) Exemplary and punitive damages shall not be recovered in actions for libel unless the plaintiff, before instituting his or her action, gives notice to the defendant to publish a retraction and allows a reasonable time to do so, and proof of the publication or correction shall be admissible in evidence under a denial on the question of the good faith of the defendant, and in mitigation and reduction of exemplary or punitive damages. For libel based on a radio or television broadcast, the retraction shall be made in the same manner and at the same time of the day as the original libel; for libel based on a publication, the retraction shall be published in the same size type, in the same editions and as far as practicable, in substantially the same position as the original libel; and for other libel, the retraction shall be published or communicated in substantially the same manner as the original libel.
(3) If the defendant in any action for slander or libel gives notice in a justification that the words spoken or published were true, this notice shall not be of itself proof of the malice charged in the complaint though not sustained by the evidence. In an action for slander or for publishing or broadcasting a libel even though the defendant has pleaded or attempted to prove a justification he or she may prove mitigating circumstances including the sources of his or her information and the ground for his or her belief. Damages shall not be awarded in a libel action for the publication or broadcast of a fair and true report of matters of public record, a public and official proceeding, or of a governmental notice, announcement, written or recorded report or record generally available to the public, or act or action of a public body, or for a heading of the report which is a fair and true headnote of the report. This privilege shall not apply to a libel which is contained in a matter added by a person concerned in the publication or contained in the report of anything said or done at the time and place of the public and official proceeding or governmental notice, announcement, written or recorded report or record generally available to the public, or act or action of a public body, which was not a part of the public and official proceeding or governmental notice, announcement, written or recorded report or record generally available to the public, or act or action of a public body.
(4) A person against whom a judgment is recovered for damages arising out of the authorship or publication of a libel is entitled to recover contribution in a civil action from all persons who were originally jointly liable for the libel with the defendant or defendants, whether joined as defendants or not, to the same extent as and with the same effect that joint sureties are liable to contribute to each other in cases where they are sureties on the same contract. If the libel has been published in a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication or by a radio or television broadcast, the servants and agents of the publisher or proprietor of the periodical or radio or television station or network, and the news agents and other persons who have been connected with the libel only by selling or distributing the publication containing the libel and who have not acted maliciously in selling or publishing the libel, shall not be required to contribute and shall not be taken into account in determining the amount that any joint tort feasor is required to contribute under the provisions of this section. If the author of the libel acted maliciously in composing or securing the printing or the publication of the libel and the printer, publisher, or distributor of the libel acted in good faith and without malice in printing and publishing the libel, the author of the libel is liable in a civil action to that printer, publisher, or distributor for the entire amount of the damages which are recovered against and paid by that printer, publisher, or distributor.
(5) In actions brought for the recovery of damages for libel in this state, it is competent for the defendant or defendants in the action to show in evidence upon the trial of the action that the plaintiff in the action has previously recovered a judgment for damages in an action for libel to the same or substantially the same purport or effect as the libel for the recovery of damages for which the action has been brought, or that the plaintiff in the action has previously brought an action for the libel or has received or agreed to receive compensation for the libel.
(6) An action for libel or slander shall not be brought based upon a communication involving public officials or public figures unless the claim is sustained by clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false.
(7) An action for libel or slander shall not be brought based upon a communication involving a private individual unless the defamatory falsehood concerns the private individual and was published negligently. Recovery under this provision shall be limited to economic damages including attorney fees.
(8) As used in this section, “libel” includes defamation by a radio or television broadcast.

MCL § 600.2911 Summary

This Michigan statute outlines the legal framework for bringing a civil action for libel or slander, addressing what constitutes actionable defamation, the types of damages recoverable, available defenses, and specific rules for different categories of plaintiffs. Words that falsely accuse someone of a lack of chastity or a criminal offense are considered “actionable in themselves” (known as defamation *per se*), meaning a plaintiff does not necessarily need to prove specific financial harm. Generally, plaintiffs can only recover for actual damages related to their property, business, profession, or feelings. However, exemplary (punitive) damages are only available in libel cases if the plaintiff first requests a retraction from the defendant and allows a reasonable time for its publication. The statute also establishes conditions for retractions, including their form and placement.

The law allows defendants to introduce evidence of truth as a justification, and even if truth isn’t fully proven, they can present mitigating circumstances, such as their sources of information. It provides a privilege against liability for publishing fair and true reports of public records or official proceedings. Furthermore, the statute details rules for contribution among multiple defendants involved in publishing libel, especially distinguishing between malicious authors and good-faith distributors. It permits defendants to show evidence of a plaintiff’s prior libel judgments or settlements. Importantly, it sets different standards of proof for public officials/figures (requiring clear and convincing evidence of actual malice) versus private individuals (requiring proof of negligence, with recovery limited to economic damages and attorney fees). Finally, it clarifies that “libel” encompasses defamation through radio or television broadcasts.

Purpose of MCL § 600.2911

The legislative intent behind this Michigan statute is to balance the fundamental right to free speech with an individual’s right to protect their reputation from false and damaging statements. It aims to provide clear guidelines for individuals and entities regarding what constitutes actionable defamation and the remedies available, while simultaneously offering protections for those who publish information under certain circumstances. By differentiating between actual damages and exemplary damages, and imposing a retraction requirement for the latter, the law encourages prompt corrections of false statements in the media, thereby mitigating harm and fostering good-faith reporting. The statute also addresses the complexities of modern communication by including radio and television broadcasts within the definition of libel. Its various provisions seek to ensure fairness in litigation, such as allowing defendants to show mitigating circumstances and protecting good-faith publishers, while also establishing higher burdens of proof for public figures, recognizing their broader access to public platforms for rebuttal.

Real-World Example of MCL § 600.2911

Imagine a local Michigan blog, “TownGossips.com,” publishes an article falsely claiming that Sarah, a small business owner, embezzled funds from her company. This statement is defamatory because it imputes the commission of a criminal offense.

1. Actionable Statement: Under MCL § 600.2911(1), accusing Sarah of embezzlement is actionable *per se*, meaning Sarah wouldn’t necessarily have to prove specific financial losses to bring a claim, as it inherently damages her reputation.
2. Actual Damages: Sarah immediately notices a significant drop in customers and her business reputation suffers. Her feelings are also deeply hurt. These would constitute her actual damages under MCL § 600.2911(2)(a).
3. Exemplary Damages: If Sarah wants to pursue exemplary (punitive) damages in addition to her actual losses, she must, according to MCL § 600.2911(2)(b), send a notice to TownGossips.com demanding a retraction. If the blog publishes a retraction in a timely manner, in a similar prominent position as the original article, this proof of correction can reduce or eliminate the exemplary damages Sarah might otherwise recover, demonstrating the blog’s good faith.
4. Defense & Privilege: If TownGossips.com had simply reported on a court filing that listed Sarah as a defendant in an embezzlement lawsuit, that would likely fall under the privilege for “fair and true report of matters of public record” as per MCL § 600.2911(3), protecting them from liability for that specific report. However, their addition of an unproven accusation would likely fall outside this privilege.
5. Private Individual: Since Sarah is a private individual, she would need to prove that TownGossips.com published the false statement negligently, as per MCL § 600.2911(7). Her recovery for this negligence would be limited to economic damages, which could include her lost business profits and attorney fees.

This scenario highlights how the statute guides both plaintiffs in seeking recourse for reputational harm and defendants in understanding their potential liabilities and defenses.

While MCL § 600.2911 specifically addresses libel and slander actions, several other Michigan statutes and areas of law are often related in personal injury litigation or when considering defamation claims:

  • Michigan Tort Reform Laws: These general personal injury statutes may affect damage caps or procedural aspects of any civil action, including defamation cases. While not directly referencing MCL § 600.2911, they set the broader context for personal injury litigation.
  • MCL § 600.2907 (Slander or libel; damages): This statute is a predecessor and often referenced alongside 2911, particularly for historical context or specific nuances not fully superseded.
  • MCL § 600.2917 (Liability for defamatory communication; privilege): This statute provides a qualified privilege against liability for certain defamatory communications made in good faith, such as reports of legislative or judicial proceedings, which complements the public record privilege in 2911(3).
  • MCL § 600.5805 (Limitations of actions; period of limitations; accrual): This general statute of limitations would dictate the time limit within which a person must file a libel or slander lawsuit, typically one year in Michigan.
  • Federal and State Constitutional Protections for Free Speech (e.g., First Amendment of U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5 of Michigan Constitution): These constitutional provisions underpin all defamation law, setting the high bar for proving defamation against public figures, as codified in MCL § 600.2911(6).

Case Law Interpreting MCL § 600.2911

Michigan courts have frequently interpreted and applied MCL § 600.2911, shaping its understanding and application in defamation cases. One significant case that discusses various aspects of defamation law, including damages and public versus private figures, is:

  • Rouch v. Enquirer & News of Battle Creek, 440 Mich. 238, 487 N.W.2d 205 (1992). This case extensively discusses the standards for private figures, negligence, and the “actual malice” standard for public figures, heavily influencing the application of subsections (6) and (7) of MCL § 600.2911. You can find more information about this case and related decisions by searching on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Rouch+v.+Enquirer+%26+News+of+Battle+Creek

Why MCL § 600.2911 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

MCL § 600.2911 is critically important in Michigan personal injury litigation because defamation — libel and slander — often results in significant harm to an individual that can be directly equated to other forms of personal injury. While many think of personal injury as physical harm, reputational damage can lead to profound emotional distress, psychological trauma, loss of income, professional ruin, and social ostracization, all of which are recognized categories of damages in personal injury claims.

For plaintiffs, this statute is the bedrock for seeking justice when their reputation has been unjustly attacked. Understanding its nuances, such as the *per se* actionable statements (like imputing a crime or lack of chastity), the types of actual damages recoverable (business, property, feelings), and the strict requirements for exemplary damages (retraction notice), is vital for building a strong case. It also informs how to categorize the plaintiff (public vs. private figure) and the corresponding burden of proof, which directly impacts litigation strategy.

For defense attorneys, MCL § 600.2911 provides key avenues for defending clients accused of defamation. It outlines crucial privileges, such as fair reporting of public records, and allows for the presentation of mitigating circumstances, including truth as a defense or the sources of information. The ability to limit damages by publishing a timely retraction is a powerful tool for media defendants. Furthermore, understanding the higher “actual malice” standard for public figures (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth) or the “negligence” standard for private individuals helps in evaluating the merits of a claim and constructing a robust defense. Ultimately, this statute ensures that both plaintiffs and defendants operate within a defined legal framework when navigating the complex landscape of reputational harm in Michigan.

Scroll to Top