Brack V. Variyam Case Summary

The court is likely to find that the tweet made about Chef Luna was defamatory per se. In order to be considered defamatory per se, a statement must be obviously and clearly damaging. In re Lipsky. To be obviously damaging, it must be damaging in and of itself, without relying on outside evidence to prove that the statement harmed the plaintiff. KTRK Television, INC. v Theaola Robinson. Defamation per se statements must relate specifically to the plaintiff’s skill or ability to carry out her occupation or profession; they are more than just defamatory statements made in the work environment. Hancock v. Variyam. However, the statements do not necessarily have to be direct allegations; statements that strongly insinuate facts that, if proven untrue, would …show more content…
Variyam. Statements that might otherwise be considered defamatory and that are made in the workplace do not fall under the category of defamatory per se unless they directly relate to the plaintiff’s skills concerning the profession. In the case of Hancock v. Variyam, the parties were both physicians. The defendant made allegations about the plaintiff’s reputation for lack of veracity and tendency for half-truths, which the plaintiff tried to claim were defamatory per se. However, the court ruled that these statements did not meet the criteria because they did not concern the plaintiff’s skills as a doctor, or his character and fitness to perform the necessary duties of the profession. Hancock v. Variyam. Rather than just being defamatory, the court reasoned that statements must be uniquely injure the palintiff’s profession; statements that would equally defame all people across all professions, such as a reputation for being a liar, do not uniquely affect the plaintiff’s occupation and so are not defamatory per se. Hancock v. Variyam,