## Facts

- Frank H. Cinquanta operated a restaurant in Boulder, Colorado.
- A. N. Burdett performed work on the restaurant’s neon sign and claimed Cinquanta owed him $155.
- A dispute arose over who should pay Burdett—Cinquanta or Cinquanta’s insurance company.
- Burdett and several friends came to the restaurant, ordered an expensive meal, and when the bill came Burdett insisted on signing the check rather than paying.
- A loud, heated argument followed inside the restaurant.
- During the exchange, Burdett allegedly said: “I don’t like doing business with crooks. You’re a dead beat. You’ve owed me $155.00 for three or four months. You’re crooks.”
- Cinquanta sued Burdett for slander per se, claiming the words were actionable without proof of special damages.
- Cinquanta proved no special damages.
- The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that the words were not slander per se; Cinquanta sought review in the Colorado Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether calling Cinquanta a “crook” or “crooks,” in context, imputed a criminal offense sufficient to constitute slander per se.
2. Whether calling Cinquanta a “dead beat” and saying he had owed $155 for months, in context, imputed financial difficulty or dishonesty affecting his credit or business reputation so as to constitute slander per se.
3. Whether dismissal was proper where the statements were not slander per se and Cinquanta proved no special damages.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
- The court held that, considering the “total attendant circumstances,” the words “crook/crooks” were used as abusive epithets during a quarrel over a disputed payment and did not amount to a charge of an indictable crime involving moral turpitude or major social disgrace.
- The court held that “dead beat” and the statement about owing $155 for three or four months did not, in this setting, amount to an actionable attack on Cinquanta’s credit or financial reputation in his business.
- Because the statements did not fit a recognized per se category and no special damages were shown, Cinquanta’s claim could not proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Words are slanderous per se only in limited categories; otherwise, the plaintiff must prove special damages.
- For slander per se based on imputation of crime, the words must be understood as charging conduct constituting a criminal offense (indictable at common law or by statute) and of a type involving infamous punishment or moral turpitude conveying major social disgrace.
- Allegedly defamatory words must be evaluated in context; a court does not isolate a single harsh term from the surrounding circumstances.
- “Mere words of abuse” spoken in outbursts of excitement or passion, even if offensive, do not become slander per se without a reasonably understood charge of criminal conduct or a serious imputation affecting credit or business standing.
- When statements do not qualify as slander per se, recovery requires proof of special damages; without such proof, dismissal is proper as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

*Cinquanta v. Burdett* held that, when spoken during a heated dispute over a claimed unpaid bill, calling a restaurant operator a “crook” and “dead beat” was treated as abusive language rather than a specific criminal accusation or a serious imputation harming the plaintiff’s credit or business reputation; because the statements were not slander per se and no special damages were proved, dismissal was affirmed.


Cinquanta v. Burdett, 388 P.2d 779 (1963)