W.J.A. v. D.A., Docket No. A-0762-09T3; (Appellate Division, September 27, 2010) is a defamation case based upon statements posted on a website. After plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed and plaintiff appealed, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, determined that Internet postings that accuse one of engaging in sexual misconduct are the type of defamatory statements for which damages may be presumed and therefore do not require the aggrieved party to prove actual harm to reputation to maintain a viable claim.

Plaintiff is the uncle of defendant. In 1998, defendant filed a complaint against plaintiff alleging that plaintiff sexually assaulted him when he was a minor. Plaintiff filed counterclaims alleging frivolous pleading, libel and slander, and the like. Defendant’s complaint was dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired. Plaintiff, however, continued with his counterclaim for defamation.  The matter was tried and the jury awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff. The trial court separately awarded $41,323.70 to plaintiff for frivolous litigation.

Thereafter, defendant created a website where he said he “was outraged by the justice [he] believed [he] did not get … .” The website allegedly contained statements by defendant that plaintiff molested him when he was a minor, specifically stating the following: “I was molested by my [u]ncle [W.J.A.], when I was a minor many, many times” and that W.J.A. “molest[ed] me and R.S. when we were minors.”

In 2007, plaintiff filed a complaint in which he alleged that defendant’s website contained defamatory statements. In 2009, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The judge granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, concluding that the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint was warranted because plaintiff had presented no proof that he was actually damaged in any way beyond his “individual subjective moral reactions” to the Internet postings. Plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Internet postings accusing one of engaging in sexual misconduct are the type of defamatory statements for which damages may be presumed and therefore do not require the aggrieved party to prove actual harm to reputation:

[F]or purposes of summary judgment, no one disputed that the defamatory statements attributed to defendant were defamatory. Thus, dismissal of the action at that stage — merely because plaintiff presented no proof of actual damage — provides defendant with a license to defame. If there has been a wrong, there should be a remedy, and the time-honored approach of allowing such a case to be decided by a jury, which may then assess a proper amount of damages based upon their experience and common sense, does not offend us… .

The appeals court remanded the case for trial.

The case is annexed here – W.J.A. v. D.A.