The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Actions of Slander, Founded on Trifling Causes, to Gratify a Petulant and Quarrelsome Disposition"
From Judge Edward Shippen in Rue v. Mitchell (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Phila. County 1790):
Generally speaking, indeed, actions of slander, founded on trifling causes, to gratify a petulant and quarrelsome disposition, will not be encouraged by the court; but when the reputation, trade, or profession, of a citizen it really affected, for the sake of doing justice to the dearest interests of individuals, as well as for the sake of preserving public order, and tranquillity, every appeal to the tribunals of our country ought to be liberally sustained.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Some lawyer explain. Someone makes a false allegation. No harm comes from the words. Then, I lose my job, get shunned by my church. My friends refuse to speak to me. My wife leaves me, and my children will not speak to me. My landlord evicts me for moral turpitude. I lose my occupational license. Those actions are very harmful to me, and my life is destroyed by people acting on a false allegation.
Why am I suing the slanderer? They caused no damage. Why am I not suing all the other parties that relied on the false statement and caused real damage to me? I can see their making the slanderer a co-defendant, but why am I doing suing only that party?
I would also immunize an ass kicking of the slanderer. Almost all allegations made in the context of a divorce are false. So all those damaging parties relied on an allegation notorious, and well known to be false. That is knowledge (malice), and justifies exemplary damages.
Is slander another example of the utter idiocy of the toxic lawyer profession?
Did you read anything besides the title?
The plaintiff won the case.
I think it's Daivd Behar resurrected.
Nice to be remembered. Preciate you.
I read the entire post. I am asking a question about who causes damage in defamation cases. Damage is not caused by false allegation words. Words may hurt a person's feelings, which have no monetary value. Damage is caused by people acting on the false allegation.