Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1983)
- Docket
- 83-18
- Decided
- 1983-01-01
Summary
Question: If a trial judge does not instruct the jury to only award punitive damages caused by intentional slander or reckless conduct, can a jury still award punitive damages to a plaintiff defamed by private speech? Conclusion: Yes. Justice Lewis Powell authored the opinion for a 5-4 court. Although the trial court correctly perceived that the trial judge's instructions did not satisfy the requirements of Gertz , the Court held that Gertz did not apply since the present case did not involve public speech. Instead the Court looked to apply the logic of Gertz to situations concerning private speech. The Court reasoned that laws regulating defamation suits aimed to "balance the State's interest in compensating private individuals for injury to their reputation against the First Amendment interest in protecting this type [Bradstreet's] of expression." Because the First Amendment offers less protection to private speech than to public speech, and especially less to speech "being solely motived by a desire for profit," damages caused by it can result in heavier penalties and broader conditions for convictions. Therefore states can allow the recovery of punitive damages in defamation cases involving private speech even when the perpetrator does not demonstrate "actual malice."