Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

WWE doctor suing Punk/Cabana


sek69

Recommended Posts

 

Slander/libel cases are extremely hard to win. It will be interesting to see what kind of legs this one has. Hard to imagine Punk flat out made up the story, but who knows.[/quote

 

True. FWIW, that's why NO baseball player has brought legal action against PED suspicions and allegations in media content. The proof in the case would be if the player lost their job, or couldn't get the same salary base they once commanded in baseball, or loss of endorsements due to said whispers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another sticking point is that Amman is not a public figure, so "actual malice" is not a burden he has to meet (i.e., Punk doesn't have to have knowingly lied to be found liable). That's a huge separation between him and MLB players and other athletes.

 

That said, Punk got away with not having to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so he must be pretty confident that he had the WWE at large over a barrel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another sticking point is that Amman is not a public figure, so "actual malice" is not a burden he has to meet (i.e., Punk doesn't have to have knowingly lied to be found liable). That's a huge separation between him and MLB players and other athletes.

 

That said, Punk got away with not having to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so he must be pretty confident that he had the WWE at large over a barrel.

 

Dr. Chris Amann performs on WWE programming as a character named Dr. Chris Amann. Wouldn't that make him a public figure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Another sticking point is that Amman is not a public figure, so "actual malice" is not a burden he has to meet (i.e., Punk doesn't have to have knowingly lied to be found liable). That's a huge separation between him and MLB players and other athletes.

 

That said, Punk got away with not having to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so he must be pretty confident that he had the WWE at large over a barrel.

 

Dr. Chris Amann performs on WWE programming as a character named Dr. Chris Amann. Wouldn't that make him a public figure?

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you with Exhibit A:

 

dr-amann.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Another sticking point is that Amman is not a public figure, so "actual malice" is not a burden he has to meet (i.e., Punk doesn't have to have knowingly lied to be found liable). That's a huge separation between him and MLB players and other athletes.

 

That said, Punk got away with not having to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so he must be pretty confident that he had the WWE at large over a barrel.

 

Dr. Chris Amann performs on WWE programming as a character named Dr. Chris Amann. Wouldn't that make him a public figure?

 

I doubt that brings him to the level of public figure within the meaning of defamation. The definition in Illinois as far as I can find is "(1) persons who achieve such a degree of general fame and notoriety in the community that they are considered

public figures for all purposes and in all contexts; and (2) persons who either have voluntarily injected themselves into a public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved, or have been drawn into such a controversy, thus becoming public figures for a limited range of issues."

And did Punk or Cabana mention him by name on the podcast? I don't recall. That's a possible legal sticking point.

If you can reasonably infer who a defamatory statement is about, then it still counts.

Vince McMahon is a public figure. Amann isn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slander/libel cases are extremely hard to win. It will be interesting to see what kind of legs this one has. Hard to imagine Punk flat out made up the story, but who knows.

While that's generally true, Amann will likely go after Punk for defamation per se, which includes "indicating that the plaintiff is unable to perform or lacks integrity in performing his or her employment duties." Punk pretty certainly did that much and with defamation per se the court will presume harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, defamation per se doesn't shift the burden of proof on any of the other elements. It just means that Amann doesn't have to show that he was damaged by Punk's statements. He does have to show that Punk either knew his statements were false or, if he believed them to be true, didn't have reasonable grounds for that belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...