Slander per se refers to statements that are inherently damaging and actionable without proof of monetary loss.

Slander per se refers to statements that are inherently damaging and actionable without proof of monetary loss.

• A. True
• B. False
• C. Sometimes
• D. Only for public figures

Answer: (A)

Defamation law distinguishes per se from per quod. Slander per se refers to statements that are inherently damaging and therefore actionable without proof of monetary loss. This means that if someone is accused of a crime, of having a loathsome disease, of professional incompetence, or other inherently harmful traits, you can sue without showing a specific financial injury. The statement in the question matches this definition, so it is true. If a statement only harms reputation in a way that requires proving damages or economic loss, that would be per quod, not per se; and public figures don't change the basic rule about inherent harm, though they may involve different standards of proof for malice.

Defamation law distinguishes per se from per quod. Slander per se refers to statements that are inherently damaging and therefore actionable without proof of monetary loss. This means that if someone is accused of a crime, of having a loathsome disease, of professional incompetence, or other inherently harmful traits, you can sue without showing a specific financial injury. The statement in the question matches this definition, so it is true. If a statement only harms reputation in a way that requires proving damages or economic loss, that would be per quod, not per se; and public figures don't change the basic rule about inherent harm, though they may involve different standards of proof for malice.