51-5-5. Inference of malice; rebuttal thereof; effect of rebuttal.

Active

Current through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly.

In all actions for printed or spoken defamation, malice is inferred from the character of the charge. However, the existence of malice may be rebutted by proof. In all cases, such proof shall be considered in mitigation of damages. In cases of privileged communications, such proof shall bar a recovery.

The notes below are printed with the section but are not enacted law (O.C.G.A. § 1-1-1(c)). They are shown apart from the text.

History

Orig. Code 1863, § 2917; Code 1868, § 2924; Code 1873, § 2975; Code 1882, § 2975; Civil Code 1895, § 3833; Civil Code 1910, § 4429; Code 1933, § 105-706.

Law reviews

For article, ‘‘Defamation in Georgia Local Government Law: A Brief History,’’ see 16 Ga. L. Rev. 627 (1982). For comment discussing admissibility of evidence of malice not previously pleaded, in light of Van Gundy v. Wilson, 84 Ga. App. 429, 66 S.E.2d 93 (1951), see 14 Ga. B. J. 358 (1952).

Read the official page (the state's PDF, opened at the page this text was read from).

Current through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly.

Text read from t51-(v39)-2017-pdf.pdf, Volume V39, 2017 edition, page 570; merge action: annotated; file SHA-256 bc30a40687b2.