Final answer:
In negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty of care, the misrepresentation was not intentional, the plaintiff was not solely responsible, and the misrepresentation impacted the plaintiff's decisions. This contrasts with defamation cases requiring actual malice for public officials.
Step-by-step explanation:
In a case of negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must establish several key factors to prove that the defendant is liable on the balance of probabilities. Among these factors, it is essential that the plaintiff shows the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. This duty of care means that the defendant had a responsibility to provide accurate and reliable information that the plaintiff could depend upon. Furthermore, it must be demonstrated that the misrepresentation was not intentional (as that would lead to a different cause of action), that the plaintiff is not solely responsible for relying on the inaccurate information, and importantly, that the misrepresentation did indeed have an impact on the plaintiff's decisions.
These requirements are in stark contrast to the standard of actual malice required in defamation cases involving public officials, as established by the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan. Unlike negligent misrepresentation, where a mistake in information could lead to liability if a duty of care is breached, actual malice requires that false information is shared with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.