Thompson v. McCready

Citations

• 194 Pa. 32
• 45 A. 78

Syllabus

<p>Slander — Judicial proceedings — Repetition of words — Punitive damages -Evidence.</p> <p>Testimony honestly given by the defendant at the trial of an action for slander, of circumstances connected with the utterance of the slanderous words tending to mitigation of damages, cannot be urged as a malicious repetition of the slander.</p> <p>On the trial of an action for slander it appeared that defendant, who was a physician, while attending plaintiff’s husband, administered chloroform preparatory to the performance of a critical operation which he considered necessary. Noticing immediately an unfavorable effect on the patient, the attempt was abandoned and efforts made to restore him to consciousness, but these were unavailing, and death resulted. When the alarming symptoms appeared, plaintiff accused the physician of malpractice, and threatened him with an action. Defendant testified that, at a post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased, plaintiff ordered him out of the room, and that, after leaving the room, he called her attention to her testimony at the coroner’s inquest the day before, to the effect that her husband was much better the day the chloroform was administered, and asserting that she had told him that her husband was much worse on that day; in substance, charging her with perjury, which was the basis of the action. The verdict of the jury at this trial having been set aside, this testimony was admitted in evidence without objection at the second trial. The court charged that the jury could take this testimony into consideration as a basis for punitive damages. Held, to be error.</p>