## Facts

- Patrick Longbehn worked as a probationary police officer for the City of Moose Lake, Minnesota.
- On New Year’s Eve 2000, two of Longbehn’s acquaintances attended a party with two teenage girls, including Robin Schoenrock’s stepdaughter.
- A witness testified that Schoenrock, during a cell-phone call about getting his stepdaughter home, said he would contact law enforcement and referred to one officer as “Pat the Pedophile.”
- Schoenrock denied making the statement; the witness testified it was the first time he had heard the nickname.
- In January 2001, Moose Lake did not retain Longbehn after his probationary period; the police chief testified the termination was based on community views that Longbehn was “overzealous and overbearing,” and not because of the nickname.
- Longbehn later lost a corrections job during training following an incident in which he assaulted his girlfriend/co-worker.
- Longbehn sued Schoenrock for defamation; the jury found liability, concluded the statement was defamatory per se, and awarded general damages, special damages (lost wages), and punitive damages.
- The district court granted Schoenrock judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), ruling the statement was not defamatory per se, that special damages were not proved, and setting aside general and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether calling Longbehn “Pat the Pedophile” constitutes defamation per se under Minnesota law.
2. Whether JMOL was proper as to special damages for economic loss based on causation and evidentiary sufficiency.
3. Whether, in a defamation per se case, general damages require proof of a causal link and whether the jury’s general-damages amount was supported by the record.
4. Whether punitive damages were supported by clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for others’ rights.

## Decision

- The court held that referring to an identified person as a “pedophile” is defamatory per se.
- The court affirmed JMOL setting aside special damages because the evidence did not show the statement was a substantial factor causing Longbehn’s claimed lost wages or impaired employment prospects.
- The court reversed the district court’s requirement that Longbehn prove a causal link to recover general damages, holding that general damages are presumed in defamation per se.
- The court reversed the jury’s general-damages amount as unsupported and excessive given the limited publication evidence, and remanded for a new trial limited to determining the proper amount of general damages.
- The court affirmed JMOL setting aside punitive damages for failure to prove deliberate disregard by clear and convincing evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A statement imputing serious sexual misconduct may constitute defamation per se; labeling someone a “pedophile” qualifies as defamation per se under Minnesota law.
- In defamation per se, general damages (reputational harm and related non-economic injury) are presumed; a plaintiff need not prove actual reputational harm to establish entitlement to general damages.
- Special damages (specific economic losses) require proof of causation linking the defamatory statement to the claimed loss.
- Even where general damages are presumed, the amount awarded must be supported by the evidence; courts may order a new trial on damages where an award is excessive relative to the scope and context of publication.
- Punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others; a single alleged statement in a private communication, without more, may be insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that calling Longbehn a “pedophile” was defamation per se and that general damages were presumed, but it upheld the denial of special and punitive damages for lack of proof and ordered a new trial only on the amount of general damages because the jury’s award was not supported by the record.


Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007)