PJC Business 2024

D EFAMATION , B USINESS D ISPARAGEMENT & I NVASION OF P RIVACY

PJC 110.3

publication’s explicit statements; whether the publication accuses the plaintiff or merely recites the accusations of others; whether the publication merely reports sets of facts or links key facts together; and whether the publication includes facts that negate the alleged implication. Tatum , 554 S.W.3d at 635. “The especially rigorous review that the requirement implements is merely a reflection of the ‘underlying principle’ that obligates ‘judges to decide when allowing a case to go to a jury would, in the totality of the circumstances, endanger first amendment freedoms.’” Tatum , 554 S.W.3d at 636 (quoting Ollman v. Evans , 750 F.2d 970, 1006 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). If a statement is reasonably capable of having the meaning alleged by the plaintiff, and if that meaning is reasonably capable of defaming the plaintiff, then it is for the jury to determine whether the statement actually had that meaning and whether that meaning actually was defamatory. Tatum , 554 S.W.3d at 624, 631–32. PJC 110.3 sub mits these questions. Corporations and other entities. Corporations and other entities may bring actions for defamation. Neely v. Wilson , 418 S.W.3d 52, 72 (Tex. 2013) (recognizing professional associations share the same rights as for-profit corporations as to main taining defamation claims); Waste Management of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Disposal Sys tems Landfill, Inc. , 434 S.W.3d 142, 149 (Tex. 2014). In cases involving a corporate plaintiff, the definition of “defamatory” should be adjusted by changing “living per son” to an appropriate descriptive term. A corporation may suffer reputation damages; such damages are noneconomic in nature. Waste Management of Texas , 434 S.W.3d at 147. Defamation injures the corpo ration’s reputation, not its business. Waste Management of Texas , 434 S.W.3d at 151 & n.35. Business disparagement and defamation are distinct causes of action. Waste Management of Texas , 434 S.W.3d at 155; Burbage v. Burbage , 447 S.W.3d 249, 261 n.6 (Tex. 2014). Statements about the quality of a business’s goods or services may support a claim for business disparagement but will not support a claim for defamation unless they further impute “dishonesty, a lack of integrity, or other reprehensible con duct.” Innovative Block of South Texas, Ltd. v. Valley Builders Supply, Inc. , 603 S.W.3d 409, 426 (Tex. 2020). See PJC 110.15 for jury instructions concerning busi ness disparagement. Natural defects. Libel encompasses the publication of “natural defects” of an individual when that publication exposes the individual to public hatred, ridicule, or financial injury. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §73.001. The few cases addressing “natural defects” involve accusations of a mental problem. See, e.g., Enterprise Co. v. Ellis , 98 S.W.2d 452 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1936, no writ) (accusation that plaintiff was “goofey” or suffering from mental imbalance); Hibdon v. Moyer , 197 S.W. 1117 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1917, no writ) (accusation that plaintiff suffered from “brain storms”); see also Raymer v. Doubleday & Co. , 615 F.2d 241, 243 (5th Cir. 1980) (accusation involving physical appearance, i.e., baldness or pudginess, did not impli cate a natural defect according to the court). Because this category of defamation

381