Question

Rita was an outspoken city councilor who was elected on a platfom of acting with integrity and abiding by the laws. She narrowly beat Allan for the last council position. Rita had run into Allan after the election and when no one else was present told him that in her opinion the voters had chosen the right person in electing her over Allan. Allan was infuriated by her comment and privately his apinion was that she was an idiot One night Rita was driving home from downtown after work and was pulled over for erratic driving. By coincidence Allan was driving by in the opposite direction. He was on his way to a Rotary meeting and had been asked to be a speaker. His topic was Integrity in Every Day Life Alan recognized Rita's car, a pink Cadillac that she had earned years before as a top Mary Kay Cosmetic representative. He saw Rita standing by her car speaking with an RCMP officer. Allan was a volunteer auxiliary RCMP and therefore knew that for a citizen to be asked to step outside of the car was serious. Allan also had seen Rita two hours earlier walking out of Bob's Bar& Grill. Allan immediately put two and two together and concluded that Rita had been pulled over for drinking and driving Allan continued on to his Ratary meeting. In the midst of giving his speech someone asked him to give an example of integrity or lack of it in everyday life. Allan then proceeded to tell the group that he had seen Rita, the well known councilor, pulled over by the RCMP and further that he had seen her leaving a bar just a couple of hours prior to that time. Thus Rita had clearly breached her integrity as a public citizen by going to the bar and then driving home. Further when a police officer pulls you out of your car it is a Rita found out about Allan's comments when she heard them repeated by an announcer/DJ on a radio show the following day, namely, that she had been seen at a bar and shortly later was

Answer 1

Case:

Background:

In present case Rita is a Councilor and Allan is her opponent. One day Rita was caught by RCMP officer for erratic driving. Allan who was driving from opposite direction saw Rita talking to RCMP officer and falsely mistaken that she was caught for drink and drive case as he had seen her leaving bar earlier. Allan went to rotary club meeting and in mid of his speech mentioned the incident. A DJ who was also present in the meeting repeated the same claim in radio program and this was heard by Rita.

US laws on deformation:

Generally there are two types of Deformation law

1. Libel: Written or published false assertion of facts communicated to 3^rd party.
2. Slander: Spoken communication of false assertion of facts communicated to 3^rd party.

1. Here parties are Rita plaintiff and DJ & radio station are defendant. This is because Rita is the one who suffered damage and DJ is the one who made claim on radio. The second case can also be filed against Allan for deforming her reputation.
2. The important event are as fallows

1. Rita caught by RCMP police: this is because to ascertain Rita was not caught for drink and drive. If RCMP police say she was caught for drink and drive then false statement becomes true and case ends.
2. Allan making statement in rotary party.
3. DJ announces Rita case in radio program: This is where he has done mistake.

3. The important and relevant fact are as follows

1. Rita was caught by RCMP police for erratic driving.
2. Allan making statement in rotary club meeting
3. DJ making statement in radio program.

4. The legal issue here is Allan and DJ making false statement against Rita which damaged her public image.
5. The applicable law for both the case is deformation law. Rita can file Libel deformation against DJ and radio station and Slander deformation against Allan.
6. The most likely decision is Rita might win case against all the three parties. This is because it is evident from the case that Rita was not caught for drink and drive. There are evidence to show Allan made the statement in rotary club and DJ made the statement in radio program. It can also be proved that this statement damaged Rita’s public image, hence Rita can sue all three parties.