Libel and slander are terms used by the public interchangeably but have different meanings. They both fall under the action we call defamation. Libel is when someone defames another in writing while slander is when someone defames you in spoken word. “At the heart of every action for libel or defamation is the threshold issue of whether the language used is reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning. It is well established that that question is one of law to be resolved by the court. Herrmann v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 48 N.J. Super. 420, 429-30 (App.Div. 1958). Likewise, the critical issue in this case — whether the letter in question amounted to a statement of fact or an expression of opinion — is a question of law for the court. Rinaldi v. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 42 N.Y.2d 369, 380, 366 N.E.2d 1299, 1306, 397 N.Y.S.2d 943, 950, cert. den., 434 U.S. 969, 98 S.Ct. 514, 54 L.Ed.2d 456 (1977). As a preliminary matter we therefore emphasize that the summary judgment procedure is particularly well suited to this sensitive area of First Amendment Law.” Kotlikoff v. The Community News, 89 N.J. 62 (1982).
Many times these issues arise in the workplace. For instance if your employer falsely accuses you of stealing money and tells your co-workers you stole money that would be slander. If they put the same comments in writing, it would be libel. If your employer said “in their opinion,” you are a thief, this would not be defamation. It is merely their opinion. If you have questions about defamation, please call me to discuss your rights and options.
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NJInjuryLawyer
- Personal Injury
- Workers Compensation
- Criminal Matters
- Traffic Matters
- DWI/DUI
- Municipal Court
- Family Law, Divorce, Custody and DYFS Cases.
Call for a free consultation! (609) 259-7600
37 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Tel. (609) 259-7600 Fax (609) 259-7303
heyburn@heyburnlaw.com
When a person sues another person for injuries or damages, they may open up private details of their life for the public to see. Sometimes the concern for privacy will prevent a person from suing. New Jersey Courts will let someone file a complaint anonymously to prevent the public from learning their identity or personal details of their claim. Anonymous pleading is rare but permitted.
For instance, in Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 591, 97S.Ct. 869, 872, 51 L.Ed.2d 64, 68 (1977), a state statute was upheld that required a centralized computer file record of names and addresses of people who had obtained certain prescription drugs for which there was also an unlawful market. Cf. Doe v. City of New York, 15 F.3d 264 (2nd Cir.1994) (agency publicly disclosed the settlement terms of HIV infected plaintiff’s discrimination claim in accordance with New York City law despite a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement; court determined that under the agreement plaintiff had a right to confidentiality in his HIV status, and it did not “automatically become a public record when he filed his claim with the Commission and entered into the Conciliation Agreement”); James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 234-235 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiffs allowed to proceed anonymously where they alleged that *503 their infertility doctor artificially inseminated plaintiff-wife with his own sperm rather than plaintiff-husband’s sperm); Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, 794 F. Supp. 72 (D.R.I. 1992) (transsexual allowed to proceed anonymously against medical insurer in claim for reimbursement of sex change expenses); United States v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 638 F.2d 570, 581-582 (3rd Cir.1980) (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health permitted to obtain employee medical records so long as employees had prior notice and an opportunity to object).
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NJInjuryLawyer
- Personal Injury
- Workers Compensation
- Criminal Matters
- Traffic Matters
- DWI/DUI
- Municipal Court
- Family Law, Divorce, Custody and DYFS Cases.
Call for a free consultation! (609) 259-7600
37 Robbinsville-Allentown Road, Robbinsville, NJ 08691
Tel. (609) 259-7600 Fax (609) 259-7303
heyburn@heyburnlaw.com
If you ask most people who work, “Who’s the boss?” you will get an immediate answer. If you ask a construction worker the same question, it may be difficult to answer. Often there are layers of bosses including owners, general contractors, subcontractors and engineers. Each of these parties may have a responsibility to make sure the construction site is safe. Lawyers deal with this issue every day when their clients are injured after being exposed to hazardous conditions on construction sites. Although an employee generally must pursue a workers compensation claim against his or her employer in lieu of a civil law suit; the employee is not precluded from suing the other culpable parties.
Federal Regulations such as those promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration give the construction industry and lawyers guidance on who is the boss and what their responsibilities are. For example a general or prime contractor has a non-delegable duty to make sure that construction workers have a safe place to work. O.S.H.A. also regulates when a “boss” has to make sure that workers are using safety equipment such as “fall protection.” Unfortunately, many of the “bosses” on a construction site put pressure on the construction worker to get the job done and abandon safe work practices. This often ends up in a catastrophic loss to the worker, the family or the public at large. The law says that the “bosses” are responsible and that may not just be the company signing the construction worker’s pay check. We investigate construction site accidents and determine who is responsible for the worker’s injuries. In doing so, we protect our client’s rights, get them compensated for their losses and put the legal responsibility where is should be, with the “boss.”
Recent Comments