25-840.01. Libel; invasion of privacy; damages; retraction; effect.
410 words·~2 min read·
/ne/chapter-25/25-840-01A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
(1)In an action for damages for the publication of a libel or for invasion of privacy as provided by section 20-204 by any medium, the plaintiff shall recover no more than special damages unless correction was requested as herein provided and was not published. Within twenty days after knowledge of the publication, plaintiff shall have given each defendant a notice by certified or registered mail specifying the statements claimed to be libelous or to have invaded privacy as provided by section 20-204 and specifically requesting correction. Publication of a correction shall be made within three weeks after receipt of the request. It shall be made in substantially as conspicuous a manner as the original publication about which complaint was made. A correction, published prior to receipt of a request therefor, shall have the same force and effect as if published after such request. The term special damages, as used in this section, shall include only such damages as plaintiff alleges and proves were suffered in respect to his or her property, business, trade, profession, or occupation as the direct and proximate result of the defendant's publication.
(2)This section shall not apply if it is alleged and proved that the publication was prompted by actual malice, and actual malice shall not be inferred or presumed from the publication.
A plaintiff in a per se public libel action is not required to plead and prove special damages to state a claim. Palmtag v. Republican Party of Neb., 315 Neb. 679, 999 N.W.2d 573 (2024).
When a plaintiff is able to plausibly plead and prove special damages, the various "per se" rules do not matter because the pleading and proving of special damages will render the statement actionable. Palmtag v. Republican Party of Neb., 315 Neb. 679, 999 N.W.2d 573 (2024).
The plaintiff's failure to request a retraction under this section constitutes an affirmative defense which must be raised by the defendant prior to trial. Funk v. Lincoln-Lancaster Cty. Crime Stoppers, 294 Neb. 715, 885 N.W.2d 1 (2016).
For failure to allege, as ordered by the court, whether or not publication was malicious and whether defendant gave notice and requested correction, the petition was properly dismissed. Vodehnal v. Grand Island Daily Independent, 191 Neb. 836, 218 N.W.2d 220 (1974).
Where no attempt to comply with this section made, assumption is that cause of action predicated on actual malice. Whitcomb v. Nebraska State Education Assn., 184 Neb. 31, 165 N.W.2d 99 (1969).