Bindinglaw

WI · jury_instructions

Wis JI-Civil 2509

Defamation: Private Individual Versus Media Defendant (Negligent Standard)

activein force · 2003-01-01 – presentas-observed

(As to question 1, give the definition of "Defamation," from Wis. JI-Civil 2501.)

Question 2 asks whether (defendant) was negligent in making (publishing) the

statement about (plaintiff). If you are satisfied from the credible evidence that (defendant) did

not have a reasonable basis for making (publishing) the statement or did not use ordinary care

in checking on the truth or falsity of the statement before making (publishing) it, then you

will answer question 2 "yes."

Ordinary care is the degree of care which the great mass of mankind ordinary

exercises under the same or similar circumstances. A person fails to use ordinary care when,

without intending to do any wrong, he or she acts or omits a precaution under circumstances

in which a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence ought reasonably to foresee that such

act or omission will subject the person or the person's property, or the person or property of

another, to an unreasonable risk of injury or damage.

(Plaintiff) has the burden of proof to satisfy you by the greater weight of the credible

evidence, to a reasonable certainty, that (defendant) was negligent in making (publishing) the

statement.

(As to question 3, the damage question, give Wis JI-Civil 2516.)

(As to question 4, actual malice, give the actual malice part of Wis JI-Civil 2511.)

(As to question 5, punitive damages, give Wis JI-Civil 2520.)

(As to question 3, burden of proof, give Wis JI-Civil 200.)

(As to questions 4 and 5, actual malice and punitive damages, give Wis JI-Civil 205.)

SPECIAL VERDICT

Question 1: Was the statement made (published) by (defendant) (insert statement,

e.g., John Jones took a bribe) defamatory:

ANSWER:

(yes or no)

Question 2: If you answered "yes" to question 1, then answer this question:

Was (defendant) negligent in making (publishing such statement?

ANSWER:

(yes or no)

Question 3: If you answered "yes" to question 2, then answer this question:

What sum of money will fairly and reasonably compensate (plaintiff)

because of such defamatory statement?

ANSWER:$

Question 4: If you answered "yes" to question 2, then answer this question:

Did (defendant) act with actual malice in making (publishing) such

statement?

ANSWER:

(yes or no)

Question 5: If you answered "yes" to question 4, then answer this question:

What sum of money, if any, do you assess against (defendant) for

punitive damages?

ANSWER:$

History

Wis JI-Civil 2509 (2003). ©2003, Regents, Univ. of Wis. Prepared by the Wisconsin Civil Jury Instructions Committee of the Wisconsin Judicial Conference with the University of Wisconsin Law School; posted by the Wisconsin State Law Library with the University's permission.

Provenance

Source
wilawlibrary.gov
Retrieved
2026-09-24
Edition
2026-09-24
Content hash
b53092a0e86dd7d77e14d3689e017f20e6e3abcc8ab2ec403863af538e84147b
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.