|
4869 A statement that plaintiff demanded a fee to which he was not entitled did not accuse him of a crime or necessarily injure him in his occupation, because a person who makes a claim for money that is eventually rejected has not necessarily done something illegal or wrong; a statement that other employees refused to work for plaintiff and would leave if he remained in his position did not relate to his fitness for his occupation, since there are many reasons that employees might not be willing to work under a particular supervisor, such as work ethic, rectitude, or legitimate business disagreements; therefore, neither of those statements qualified as slander per se, and plaintiff was required to plead and prove actual damage.CitationNETHERCUTT v REGALIA (Slander per What) 172 CA4 361 [See: CivC 46; Correia v Santos 191 CA2 844; Mann v Quality 120 CA4 90, T/AT 8/04]
|
|
