|
2113 REVIEW DENIED Statements purporting to be based on scientific studies are assertions of fact rather than expressions of opinion; in actions for injurious falsehood, or in defamation actions based on statements relating to a matter of public concern, or in which plaintiff seeks presumed and punitive damages, "actual malice" is required and consists of subjective knowledge of falsity by defendant or subjective doubts in the mind of the defendant regarding the truth or falsity of the statements; the actual malice requirement is not satisfied by what the defendant "must have known" or doubts the defendant "must have entertained."CitationMELALEUCA v CLARK (Tea Tree Oil) 66 CA4 1344 [See: Copp v Paxton 45 CA4 829, T/AT 6/96; Baker v LA Herald 42 C3 254; NY Times v Sullivan 376 US 254, Gertz v Robert Welch Inc 418 US 323; Phila Newspapers v Hepps 475 US 767; Bose v Consumers Union 466 U.S. 485]
|
|
