## Facts

- A farmer sued for slander based on statements accusing him of an adulterous relationship with a married woman and of wanting to keep her husband imprisoned to continue the affair.
- The statements were not slander actionable per se, so the plaintiff sought to prove special damages.
- After learning of the statements, the plaintiff claimed mental distress and physical illness requiring medical treatment.
- The plaintiff alleged he could not work his farm, incurred medical expenses, and paid for hired labor to tend his crops.
- The claimed harm was linked in significant part to the spread of the statements through repetition by other persons.
- The trial court entered judgment for the defendant, finding the alleged injuries were not legally cognizable special damages attributable to the defendant’s utterance.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff can recover for slander not actionable per se based on claimed losses consisting of illness, inability to work, and related expenditures.
2. Whether damages arising primarily from third-party repetition of the defamatory words are legally attributable to the original speaker as special damages.
3. What causal connection and type of proof are required to show special damages for slander not actionable per se.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed judgment for the defendant.
- The court held the plaintiff failed to plead and prove special damages that were the natural, immediate, and legal consequence of the defendant’s original statements.
- Harm attributable to third-party repetition was treated as resulting from a separate wrongful act by the repeaters, not chargeable to the original speaker on this record.
- The plaintiff’s claimed illness, distress, inability to work, and related expenses were not sufficient special damages because they were not shown to flow from an objective impairment of reputation producing a direct pecuniary loss.

## Legal Principles

- For slander not actionable per se, special damages must be the natural, immediate, and legal consequence of the words spoken.
- Special damages in this context must flow directly from impaired reputation and be shown by concrete, objective pecuniary loss (e.g., loss of customers, employment, or specific economic opportunities).
- As a general rule, a third person’s voluntary repetition of defamatory words is an independent wrong, making the repeater liable; resulting damages are not ordinarily recoverable from the original speaker without a special basis for attribution.
- Mental anguish, physical illness, and related expenses are insufficient as special damages when they are primarily the plaintiff’s personal reaction and are not tied to provable reputational impairment causing specific economic loss.
- Absent proof that others altered their conduct toward the plaintiff because of the statement (such as refusing to deal with him), the required link between defamation, reputational harm, and special damages is not established.

## Conclusion

The court limited recovery for slander not actionable per se to objectively provable special damages directly caused by reputational impairment and, on these facts, denied liability for losses stemming from personal distress or from independent repetition by third parties.


Terwilliger v. Wands, 17 N.Y. 54 (N.Y. 1858)