## Facts

- Dawn Rottman bought a new AMC Matador from Forty West AMC/Jeep, Inc. and soon experienced serious mechanical defects, returning repeatedly for unsuccessful warranty repairs.
- Forty West later sold its assets (not liabilities) to Security AMC/Jeep, Inc., which operated at the same location; Wayne Hughes served as Security’s operating manager.
- Although Security and Hughes did not sell the car and the warranty had expired, Hughes obtained special authorization from AMC to perform warranty service; Security attempted repairs multiple times.
- After a final repair and a test drive suggesting the vehicle operated properly, the engine later failed and the car ceased functioning.
- Rottman complained to various agencies and media outlets, including a Baltimore television station owned by The Hearst Corporation.
- The station aired a videotaped segment of Rottman reading a letter addressed to Hughes that blamed him and Security for her problems and implied she bought the car from them.
- In a bench trial, the court found the broadcast defamatory and found Hearst negligent in airing it.
- The court found no evidence of actual reputational harm, pecuniary loss, or other concrete losses to Hughes, but awarded $2,500 in compensatory damages for emotional distress caused by the defamation.

## Issues

1. Under Maryland common law, must a plaintiff in a negligent defamation action prove actual impairment of reputation to recover compensatory damages for emotional distress caused by the defamatory publication?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment awarding $2,500 in compensatory damages.
- The court held that actual impairment of reputation is not required to establish defamation or to support compensatory damages where emotional distress from the defamatory publication is proven to the trier of fact’s satisfaction.
- Because the trial court found defamatory publication, negligence, and resulting emotional distress, the absence of proof of reputational or economic loss did not bar recovery.

## Legal Principles

- In Maryland common-law defamation, liability may be established upon proof of a defamatory publication concerning the plaintiff and the requisite degree of fault (including negligence where applicable).
- Compensatory damages in defamation may include proven emotional distress causally attributable to the defamatory publication.
- A plaintiff need not separately prove actual impairment of reputation as a prerequisite to recovering compensatory damages for proven emotional distress in a negligent defamation action.

## Conclusion

Maryland law permits recovery of compensatory damages for emotional distress resulting from negligent defamation even when the plaintiff does not prove actual reputational impairment or economic loss, so long as the defamatory publication, fault, and causation of emotional distress are established.


Hearst Corp. v. Hughes, 466 A.2d 486 (Md. 1983)