## Facts

- A Chicago Sun-Times article reported burglaries and other crimes by a youth gang on Chicago’s northwest side and described community efforts to encourage victims and witnesses to pursue complaints and attend court.
- The article quoted neighborhood residents discussing a “gang headquarters” and thefts attributed to the gang.
- In one edition, the newspaper published a photograph of a house with a caption identifying it as Mary Troman’s home and stating that “Thomas Troman testified that he is a member of the gang.”
- The publication did not expressly state that Troman’s home was the gang headquarters or explain the relationship between Mary Troman and Thomas Troman.
- Troman alleged readers would understand the article and photo-caption combination to mean her home served as the gang’s headquarters and that she was associated with the gang.
- Troman sued for defamation seeking actual damages for reputational injury.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim; the case reached the Supreme Court of Illinois on appeal.

## Issues

1. In a private individual’s defamation action against a media defendant, what standard of fault must be pleaded and proved: actual malice, strict liability, or negligence?
2. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged actionable defamation (including defamatory implication) to survive a motion to dismiss under the proper fault standard.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court adopted a negligence standard for private-figure plaintiffs suing media defendants, rejecting both strict liability and a blanket requirement of New York Times “actual malice.”
- The court held the complaint adequately alleged that the publication conveyed a defamatory implication tying Troman and her home to criminal gang activity and that the implication was false.

## Legal Principles

- After Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., states may set the liability standard for private-figure defamation against media defendants, but may not allow recovery without some showing of fault.
- In Illinois, a private individual suing a media defendant for defamation must prove at least negligence—failure to exercise reasonable care in publishing a defamatory falsehood.
- A publication may be actionable based on defamatory implication where the combined effect of text and accompanying materials (such as a photograph and caption) can reasonably be understood to convey a false and defamatory meaning.
- At the pleading stage, a complaint states a claim if it alleges falsity, reputational harm, and facts supporting a reasonable inference of defamatory meaning; the plaintiff need not plead actual malice to avoid dismissal when negligence is the governing standard.

## Conclusion

Illinois requires private-figure plaintiffs to show negligence, not actual malice, to recover from media defendants for defamation, and Troman’s allegations that the article’s photo-caption and surrounding text falsely implied her association with criminal gang activity were sufficient to proceed beyond dismissal.


Troman v. Wood, 340 N.E.2d 292 (Ill. 1975)