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
- Whether calling Cinquanta a “crook” or “crooks,” in context, imputed a criminal offense sufficient to constitute slander per se.
- 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.
- 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.