Cited by

“There is a strong public interest in reporting child abuse and protecting children from further abuse.” Bol v. Cole

14 We acknowledge the Minnesota Supreme Court’s statement that “statutorily created immunity should be construed narrowly.”

Qualified privilege is based on the premise that “statements made in particular contexts or on certain occasions should be encouraged despite the risk that the statements might be defamatory.” (), rev. denied (Minn. May 16, 2023).

12 (emphasis added) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 584, at 243 (Am.

In short, “[q]ualified privilege applies when a court determines that statements made in particular contexts or on certain occasions should be encouraged despite the risk that the statement might be defamatory.” (quotation omitted).

“One who makes a defamatory statement will not be held liable if the statement is published under circumstances that make it qualifiedly privileged and if the privilege is not abused.”

based upon a reasonable or probable cause.” (quotation omitted).

2 The parties and the district court sometimes use the term “absolute immunity,” but caselaw refers to this concept as “absolute privilege.” The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that absolute privilege is different than an immunity and is likely sometimes referred to as an immunity because “it has the effect of making the publisher of a defamatory statement immune from suit.”

If 7 a qualified privilege applies to the statement, then the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the “privilege was abused because the defamatory statements were made with malice.”

" Bol v. Cole , , 149 (Minn. 1997) (quoting Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co. , , 256-57 (Minn. 1980) ).

In order to be protected by a qualified privilege, “ [a] statement must be made in good faith and must be made upon a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and must be based upon reasonable or probable cause.” (quotation omitted).

Bol v. Cole , d 143, 149 (Minn. 1997).

B. Qualified Privilege “Qualified privilege applies when a court determines that statements made in particular contexts or on certain occasions should be encourag ed despite the risk that the statements might be defamatory.” Bol v. Cole , (quotation omitted).

d 143, 146 (Minn. 1997).

“One who makes a defamatory statement will not be held liable if the statement is published under circumstances that make it qualifiedly privileged and if the privilege is not abused.”

the supreme court considered the release of a child-abuse report by a psychologist.

(noting that use of exaggerated language can support inference of actual malice).

-48 (Minn.1997) (absolute privilege); Jadwin, d at 481 (qualified privilege).

This court will not apply absolute privilege unless the “administration of justice requires complete immunity from being called to account for language used.” Id.; (“For absolute privilege to apply, the public interest served must be one of paramount importance, such that it is entitled to protection even at the expense of failing to compensate harm to the defamed person’s reputation.”).

Based on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s we conclude respondents are entitled to a qualified privilege.