Also known as: loathsome diseases
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A category of spoken defamation that imputes to the plaintiff a stigmatizing and communicable disease such as a venereal infection. The imputation relieves the plaintiff of any requirement to prove special damages because reputational harm is presumed.
Leo Lynch told the entire kitchen staff that Luis Lopez tested positive for syphilis and should not handle food. Luis sued for slander after coworkers shunned him. The statement imputed a loathsome disease, so Luis recovered presumed damages without showing any lost wages or other economic loss.
Eloise told five artists at a gallery opening that Howard had an incurable disfiguring venereal disease he had spread in the art community. Howard later learned of the statements and suffered reputational harm within the local scene. Because the statements imputed a loathsome disease, Howard could recover without proving special harm.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. Statements imputing a loathsome disease constitute slander per se. The law presumes general damages from such an imputation, relieving the plaintiff of any need to prove actual economic loss.
Supporting sources
Venereal infections and other stigmatizing communicable diseases historically viewed as loathsome qualify. The category focuses on conditions that carry significant social stigma and are capable of transmission.
Supporting sources
No. The slander per se classification turns on the content of the statement rather than the speaker's knowledge or belief. Lack of personal knowledge may support a defense such as truth or privilege but does not remove the statement from the per se category.
Supporting sources