Admissibility of Evidence in Defamation Action Concerning Correction and Retraction; Effect on Damages

  1. Law
  2. Georgia Code
  3. Torts
  4. Libel and Slander
  5. Admissibility of Evidence in Defamation Action Concerning Correction and Retraction; Effect on Damages

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

  1. In any civil action for a defamatory statement which charges the visual or sound broadcast of an erroneous statement alleged to be defamatory, it shall be relevant and competent evidence for either party to prove that the plaintiff requested retraction or omitted to request retraction.
  2. In any such action, the defendant may allege and give proof of the following matters, as applicable:
      1. That the matter alleged to have been broadcast and to be defamatory was published without malice;
      2. That the defendant, in a regular broadcast of the station over which the broadcast in question was made, within three days after receiving written demand, corrected and retracted the allegedly defamatory statement in as conspicuous and public a manner as that in which the alleged defamatory statement was broadcast; and
      3. That, if the plaintiff so requested, the retraction and correction were accompanied, on the same day, by an editorial in which the allegedly defamatory statement was specifically repudiated; or
    2. That no request for correction and retraction was made by the plaintiff.
  3. Upon proof of the facts specified in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) of this Code section, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any punitive damages and the defendant shall be liable only to pay actual damages. The defendant may plead the broadcast of the correction, retraction, or explanation, including the editorial, if demanded, in mitigation of damages.

(Code 1981, §51-5-12, enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 408, § 1.)

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1989, "conspicuous" was substituted for "conspicious" in subparagraph (b)(1)(B).

Law reviews.

- For note on 1989 enactment of this Code section, see 6 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 330 (1989).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in Mathis v. Cannon, 276 Ga. 16, 573 S.E.2d 376 (2002).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 50 Am. Jur. 2d., Libel and Slander, §§ 319 et seq., 383, 456 et seq., 471 et seq.

CHAPTER 6 FRAUD AND DECEIT

Sec.

  • 51-6-1. Right of action for fraud accompanied by damage.
  • 51-6-2. When misrepresentation of material fact actionable as deceit; effect of mere concealment; knowledge of falsehood essential to deceit; when knowledge implied.
  • 51-6-3. Letters to obtain credit.
  • 51-6-4. Fraud by acts or silence; estoppel to assert title.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Federal Securities Exchange Act.

- Georgia Blue Sky Law, O.C.G.A. § 10-5-1 et seq., rather than the Georgia general fraud and deceit statutes, O.C.G.A. §§ 51-6-1 and51-6-2, are most analogous to actions under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and therefore the two-year statute of limitations rather than the four-year statute applies to such claims. Friedlander v. Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ashmore, 788 F.2d 1500 (11th Cir. 1986).

Cited in International Horizons, Inc. v. Committee of Unsecured Creditors, 16 Bankr. 484 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Broker's liability for fraud or misrepresentation concerning development or nondevelopment of nearby property, 71 A.L.R.4th 511.

Excessiveness or inadequacy of punitive damages in cases not involving personal injury or death, 14 A.L.R.5th 242.

Liability of vendor or real-estate broker for failure to disclose information concerning off-site conditions affecting value of property, 41 A.L.R.5th 157.


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.