Cameron v. Corkran

Citations

• 16 Del. 166

Syllabus

<p>Slander. Malice, Burden of Proof,—In an action of slander the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of proof that the words in substance as charged, when not actionable in themselves, were uttered with intent to wrong or injure; actual malice must be proved.</p> <p>Slander.—All defamatory words spoken which occasion loss or damage, though not actionable in themselves, become so when special damage result therefrom.</p> <p>Same. Privileged Communication.—A communication made in good faith, without malice, upon any subject matter, by one who has an interest in it, or a duty, legal, social, or moral, with reference to it, is privileged and the burden of proving the existence of malice is cast upon the person who claims to have been defamed.</p> <p>Same, Physician.—The relation of physician and patient is privileged, and communications between them made without malice are protected.</p> <p>Slander. Damages.—If in such a case the plaintiff is entitled to recovery the damages are limited to those which naturally and necessarily result therefrom; there are no exemplary damages allowed.</p> <p>Slander. Publication.—Proof of the repetition of slanderous words by one who heard them is inadmissible to charge the defendant.</p> <p>Slander. Evidence. Bes Gestae.—In an action of slander by a druggist against • a physician who criticised the method of compounding a prescription, the effect of the medicine and the purpose of administering it may be proved as part of the circumstances of the case.</p> <p>Slander. Evidence.—When words are actionable malice need not be proved,—it is presumed. If, however, the plaintiff does not rest on this presumption, but introduces evidence in addition, then the defendant may meet it by counter proof.</p>