Was CompuServe liable for the alleged libel of Skuttlebut, either as a republisher of the statement or as an agent of Rumorville?
2. CompuServe defended on the grounds that it was a distributor of Rumorville, as opposed to a publisher. Therefore, CompuServe could not be held liable on the libel claim because it neither knew nor had reason to know of the allegedly defamatory statements. C. Court Finding: Was Compuserve liable for the alleged libel? 1. Liability as a Republisher. a. A republisher must have knowledge of the contents of a publication before liability can be imposed for distributing that publication. b. CompuServe had no more editorial control over the publication of “Rumorville” than does a public library, book store, or newsstand. c. Skuttlebut did not set forth any facts showing that CompuServe knew or should have known of the allegedly defamatory statements. 2. Vicarious Liability as Agent of Rumorville. a. Skuttlebut also claimed that CompuServe should be held vicariously liable for the allegedly defamatory statements based on an agency relationship with “Rumorville.” b. CompuServe maintains that
Related Questions
- Is a company liable for a purchase order valued at $50,000 placed by a purchasing agent who has been granted authority only up to $25,000?
- Was CompuServe liable for the alleged libel of Skuttlebut, either as a republisher of the statement or as an agent of Rumorville?
- Is an agent held personally liable for contracts negotiated on behalf of a principal?
