Libel, Slander and Defamation in the Fire Service:
Truth is an absolute defense to claims of defamation. However, that fact does not mean that people within the
fire service should check their common sense and personal discretion at the firehouse door. Departmental
members, officers and administrators should remain mindful that they, at all times, represent not only
themselves and their families, but the department as a whole. A defamation suit can do irreparable harm, not
only to the reputation of the allegedly defamed individual, but to the reputation of the department. That
potential should serve as a powerful motivation for department members to maintain respectful, appropriate
dialogue when discussing sensitive issues that could potentially lead to a defamation suit.
Example: A volunteer fire department chief was discharged by the department, after discovery that the chief
had commingled personal funds with those of the department’s “Chief Account”, and where there had been a
history of sloppy bookkeeping practices by the chief. The former chief sued the department president, along
with other officers, who had made allegedly defamatory statements about the chief as a “thief” and an
“embezzler”.
Law: Actions for defamation are based on the principle that a person (or department) who willfully injures a
person without cause or excuse is liable for damages caused thereby. The required elements of the cause of
action are:
ƒ falsity of the statement;
ƒ malice; and
ƒ Damages
Accordingly, because falsity of the statement is an express element of the cause of action, truth is generally an
absolute defense to a defamation claim. However, as detailed below, whether a statement was true or false
can be subjective, and in such cases the determination of that issue will generally be a question to be decided
by the jury. Moreover, if the statement is found to be false, all that is necessary to show malice is that the
statement be consistent with the intent to injure the allegedly defamed individual, which is not a difficult burden
to meet.
Another affirmative defense that would be available in this instance is that of qualified immunity, due to the
department president’s interest in the issue in his official capacity. However, that defense can be defeated by
a showing of actual malice, and is not nearly as strong or valuable a defense as the truth defense.
The information contained in this publication has been developed from sources believed to be reliable. It should not, however, be construed or relied upon as legal advice and
Utica National accepts no legal responsibility for its correctness or for its application to specific factual situations.
Utica National Insurance Group • Utica Mutual Insurance Company and its affiliated companies, New Hartford, NY 13413 • www.uticanational.com
Form 5-R-496 Ed. 08-2009
Page 1 of 2
Application: As initially stated, truth is an absolute defense. However, it is also what is known as an
affirmative defense, which means that the burden of proving that the statement is “true” lies with the fire
department in such a case. This issue becomes important in examples like the one at hand, where the
statements alleged are subjective in nature, and establishing that the statements are “true” is not as easy as it
may sound. For example, if the department is successful in convincing the finder of fact, that the chief did
indeed, steal or embezzle the funds, then they will be acquitted of any wrong doing and the jury will return a
verdict for the department. However, on the other hand, if the jury concludes that the ex-chief was in fact guilty
only of being a “sloppy” bookkeeper, they may very well return a verdict for the ex-chief, which will entitle him
to any damages he can relate to the defamation. In many defamation cases, which way the jury comes down
can be unpredictable.
Discussion: Equally important, is the fact that damage awards flowing from defamation suits can be
extraordinarily high for seemingly minor infractions. In our society significant value lies in a person reputation,
and defamation awards can be significant. So, the next time you’re sitting around the fire hall and it seems like
a good idea to speak ill of someone, even if the statement is true, ask yourself; is it worth the risk? The answer
will most likely be “no”.
This information should not be construed as specific legal advice pertaining to particular legal problems or
issues your Fire District or Department may be experiencing. Rather, the information is designed to generally
address the application of particular legal principles to the hypothetical circumstances contained herein.
The information and legal analysis contained herein has been provided to the Utica National Insurance Group
by Jeffrey P. Reisner, Esq. Mr. Reisner is an attorney with experience representing Fire Districts and
Departments across New York State. Mr. Reisner is associated with The Law Offices of J. Michael Shane, 188
½ West Main Street, Allegany, New York 14706: PH: (716) 375-4213.
The information contained in this publication has been developed from sources believed to be reliable. It should not, however, be construed or relied upon as legal advice and
Utica National accepts no legal responsibility for its correctness or for its application to specific factual situations.
Utica National Insurance Group • Utica Mutual Insurance Company and its affiliated companies, New Hartford, NY 13413 • www.uticanational.com
Page 2 of 2
Form 5-R-496 Ed. 08-2009