Information from Shanley v. Hutchings, a case decided earlier this year by Judge David Barlow (D. Utah); later in the year, a jury awarded the plaintiff $1.15M in economic damages, $1.15M in noneconomic damages, and $4.5M in punitive damages:
Plaintiffs Tera Shanley and her publishing company Wicked Willow Press, LLC (“Wicked Willow”) sued Defendant Robyn A. Hutchings for various claims including defamation, injurious falsehood, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment, which Ms. Hutchings did not respond to.
The case involves numerous defamatory statements made by Ms. Hutchings on social media about Ms. Shanley, accusing her of serious offenses including rape, human trafficking, and plagiarism. Ms. Hutchings also made threats and insults towards Ms. Shanley. Ms. Shanley denies these accusations.
Ms. Shanley has suffered economic and emotional damages as a result of Ms. Hutchings’ posts. She has experienced a decline in book sales, mental health issues, and familial struggles. Ms. Shanley has provided evidence of the impact of these statements on her livelihood and well-being.
The court ruled that Ms. Hutchings’ actions were negligent and not protected under the First Amendment. Therefore, Ms. Shanley was awarded damages based on this negligence. The burden of proof lies with Ms. Hutchings to substantiate the truth of her statements.
Shanley had sufficiently testified that the statements were false.
[5.] The nature of the accusations could lead to presumed damages for Shanley, but she also provided specific evidence of damages:
Ms. Shanley presented evidence showing a reduction in her average monthly income after the posts by Ms. Hutchings, along with an affidavit detailing the average number of hours she worked per month. Additionally, evidence of her books declining in Amazon’s rankings was provided. Some fans in social media threads mentioned they would no longer purchase Ms. Shanley’s books due to the accusations. Furthermore, Ms. Shanley showed evidence of the costs of mental health counseling she incurred as a result of Ms. Hutchings’ posts. …
[6.] Some of Hutchings’ statements were not actionable as libel, as they were considered “general online harassment” in the form of opinion that cannot be verified for truthfulness or because they lacked a defamatory meaning. However, these statements could be relevant to Shanley’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress:
The elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under Utah law include intentional outrageous conduct by the defendant that offends accepted standards of decency and morality, with the purpose of causing emotional distress or where any reasonable person would have known that emotional distress would result. The plaintiff must have actually suffered severe emotional distress, and the defendant’s conduct must have caused this distress. The plaintiff must also show negligence regarding the falsity of the publication to establish a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Conduct is considered outrageous if it evokes outrage or revulsion, going beyond being unreasonable, unkind, or unfair. Liability does not extend to mere insults, threats, annoyances, or trivialities. A pattern of insults or threats may constitute extreme and intolerable conduct. In this case, Ms. Hutchings made numerous posts targeting Ms. Shanley on social media over a two-month period, making accusations and insults. The court found that Ms. Hutchings’ conduct was extreme and outrageous, causing severe emotional distress to Ms. Shanley.
Ms. Hutchings’ posts were intended to goad Ms. Shanley into emotional distress, with some posts clearly showing this purpose. Ms. Shanley presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate severe emotional distress as a direct result of Ms. Hutchings’ posts.
Emotional distress liability for non-defamatory speech was possible because the speech was determined not to be on a matter of public concern (see Snyder v. Phelps (2011)).
