Perhaps your neighborhood isn't as dicey as Wisteria Lane, but at some point, we've all been guilty of a little gossip. It's usually about the guy who's always getting his newspaper in his Fruit of the Looms, or the neighbor who's always coming home at odd hours with a different "friend." What you don't know, however, is certain chatter can land you in trouble-and it isn't limited to the excommunication from the annual block party.

What we say and/or write about people can constitute defamation, a type of civil action that provides redress for false statements of fact that harm one's reputation.

Let's say that Mrs. Blabber tells Ms. Scandal that their neighbor, Dr. Snow, has a serious cocaine habit. Blabber goes on to remark that Snow is under the influence of these illegal drugs while he's at work. Snow finds out about the rumor after his patients suddenly change doctors. What are Snow's remedies? Can he sue Blabber for the obvious damage to his reputation and loss of business?

To prove a claim for defamation in Illinois, a party must prove three essential elements: the defendant made a false statement concerning the plaintiff, the aggrieved party; there was an unprivileged publication of the defamatory statement to a third party by the defendant; and the publication of the defamatory statement damaged the plaintiff. There are two types of defamatory statements: libel and slander. Libel involves written statements about a person, whereas slander involves verbal defamation.

There are two types of defamatory statements: defamation per se and defamation per quod. A statement is "per se" if the words used are so obviously and materially harmful to the plaintiff that injury to the plaintiff's reputation may be presumed. Illinois recognizes five categories of defamatory statements that are considered actionable per se: those imputing the commission of a criminal offense; those imputing infection with a loathsome communicable disease; those imputing an inability to perform, or want of integrity, in the discharge of duties of office or employment; those that prejudice a party, or impute lack of ability, in his or her trade, profession, or business; and those imputing adultery or fornication.

Statements are defamatory "per quod" under two circumstances: where the defamatory character of the statement isn't apparent on its face, requiring the finder of fact to examine the extrinsic circumstances to determine if any injurious meaning exists; and where the statement is defamatory on its face, but doesn't fall within one of the limited categories of statements that are actionable "per se." Unlike defamation per se action, a plaintiff must plead and prove special damages to recover for defamation per quod.

Naturally, a defense to any claim of defamation is that the statement at issue was merely an opinion-not a statement of fact. The determination of whether an alleged defamatory statement is a statement of fact or opinion is a question of law. Additionally, public figures have a different burden of proof in claims for defamation. Specifically, a public official may not recover unless he or she proves the defamatory statements were made with actual malice-knowing the statements were false-or they were made with utter disregard for their truth or falsity.

In the fictitious case of Dr. Snow, it would appear the good doctor may be able to support a claim for defamation, as the statements at issue not only involve the use of illegal drugs, but also imputes his ability to perform his job. Bear in mind, however, that in bringing such a claim, plaintiffs such as Snow are subject to the defense that the statement(s) made by the defendant are true.

All of this begs the burning question: Will Mark McGuire sue Jose Conseco for defamation? TPW