A tort can be defines as a civil wrong or wrongful act, not including a breach of contract

or trust, which results in injury to a plaintiff’s property or reputation resulting in legal liability
for the person who committed the tortious act. (Dictionary.com, 2018). Mr. Kirk Morrison who
is a lawyer at Morrison and Priestly Associates was greeted by his client, Camille, who had
explained that her neighbor had posted false statement about her. Camille’s neighbor has posted
on twitter that she has HIV and has infected over ten men. This type of tort is described as
defamation. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, defamation is the act of
communicating false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone’s reputation,
and circulated with fault, meaning as a result of negligence or malice. She wishes to sue her
neighbor for the defamatory statement aid about her, but first, Mr. Morrison has to explain to
Camille the requirements to prove the tort described by Camille.
In order to prove the tort, Camille, the claimant, will have to prove that the statement
posted by her neighbor was defamatory, it refers to her and it had been published to a third party.
Publication of the tort can mean that words were spoken to someone else, the written words had
been transmitted to someone else, or that photos or gestures were shared with other people.
An essential element in defamatory actions is that the defendant had published something about
the claimant. The communication of the tort may be considered defamatory if its intentions were
to harm the reputation of the claimant as to lower their appraisal in their community to
discourage other persons from associating with him. The statement must cause harm to Camille
and not just hurt her feeling to prove that the statement was defamatory, therefore, she will have
to prove to the court that the defamatory statement has ruined her reputation. Consequently,
Camille will have to obtain prove to support her claim. She will have to retrieve the message
posted about her. It will also be necessary that a HIV test be done so as to prove the false
statement has had a devastating impact on her job and the way she is viewed in her community,
is she is been avoided and not spoken to in her community and if she is treated with contempt
while at work.
There is no way to show that the plaintiff made a statement with the intention of causing
Camille harm until it actually causes her problems. Hence, it is recommended that Camille wait
until the false statement has begun causing problems in order for her to press charges and for the
court to take actions against the plaintiff. The case presented is an example of defamation of
Character.
 In a defamation action, the recipient of a communication must understand that the
defendant intended to refer to the plaintiff in the communication. Even where the recipient
mistakenly believes that a communication refers to the plaintiff, this belief, so long as it is
reasonable, is sufficient. It is not necessary that the communication refers to the plaintiff by
name. A defendant may publish defamatory material in the form of a story or novel that
apparently refers only to fictitious characters, where a reasonable person would understand that a
particular character actually refers to the plaintiff. This is true even if the author states that he or
she intends for the work to be fictional.