Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Wands (Plaintiff), brought a slander action against the Defendant, Terwilliger (Defendant), claiming the Defendant made statements accusing the Plaintiff of having intercourse with a married woman and trying to keep this woman’s husband in jail.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Special damages must be claimed in a slander suit that is not slander per se. Only pecuniary injuries affecting one’s character will suffice.
Issue. Did the Plaintiff prove special damages, as is required when a slander cause of action is not slander per se?
Held. No. Judgment affirmed.
* The Plaintiff claims that he suffered poor health and was unable to attend to business after hearing of the Defendant’s reports. Special damages must have been the natural, immediate and legal consequences of the slander in question. It is said that special damages in general are whenever a person is prevented by the slander from receiving what would otherwise be conferred on him, even if it would have been gratuitous. In the present case, there is no proof that the Plaintiff’s character was injured. A sickness caused by fear of harm to character does not suffice, therefore the special damages relied on in this case do not support an action.
The true rule upon the subject, we think, is that recognized in Terwilliger v. Wands that where there is no proof of the circumstances under which slanderous words are repeated by the parties who originally heard them, the general rule that a repetition of slanderous words is wrongful applies, and damages which result from repeating them are a consequence of that wrong, and not a natural, immediate and legal effect of the original speaking by the defendant.View Full Point of Law