## Facts

- A book about Henry M. Stanley’s African expedition was published containing defamatory statements about Vizetelly.
- Vizetelly sued the publisher and settled; the publisher agreed to withdraw the libel by substituting corrected pages in all copies.
- The publisher issued public notices and a circular offering replacement pages and requesting holders return or submit copies for correction.
- Mudie’s Select Library, a circulating library and bookseller, owned copies of the uncorrected edition and continued to lend and sell them after the public notices.
- Mudie’s asserted it had not read the book and did not know of the defamatory passage, the prior action, or the publisher’s request.
- Vizetelly sued Mudie’s for libel based on the library’s lending and sale as publication.
- A jury found for Vizetelly and awarded damages; the trial court denied post-trial relief.
- Mudie’s appealed, arguing it was not a publisher and, alternatively, was protected as an innocent disseminator.

## Issues

1. Whether a circulating library that lends and sells a defamatory book is a “publisher” for purposes of libel.
2. Whether the library avoided liability under the common-law defense of innocent dissemination by showing lack of knowledge, no reason to suspect libel, and no negligence in failing to discover it.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed judgment for Vizetelly and dismissed Mudie’s appeal.
- Mudie’s lending and sale of the book constituted publication of the defamatory matter.
- The defense of innocent dissemination was available in principle to subordinate distributors, including circulating libraries, but Mudie’s did not satisfy it.
- The court held Mudie’s failure to learn of and respond to the publisher’s widely publicized correction effort supported a finding of negligence, defeating the defense.

## Legal Principles

- Dissemination of a defamatory work by lending or selling is publication in libel, even if the distributor did not author, edit, or read the work.
- A subordinate distributor may avoid liability for defamation only if it proves:
  - it lacked knowledge of the libel;
  - nothing in the work or surrounding circumstances should have led it to suspect libel; and
  - its lack of knowledge was not caused by its own negligence.
- The defendant bears the burden to establish innocent dissemination; commercial distributors may be required to take reasonable care to stay informed of warnings or correction notices affecting works they circulate.

## Conclusion

The court held that a circulating library that actively lends and sells books publishes any libel within them and remains liable unless it proves strict elements of innocent dissemination, including absence of negligence in failing to discover the defamation.


Vizetelly v. Mudie’s Select Libr., Ltd., (1900) 2 Q.B. 170 (Eng. C.A.)