Lexplug logoLexplug

Malone v. Stewart

Ohio Supreme Court
15 Ohio St. 319 (1846)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Spoken words about a female that have a tendency to wound her feelings, bring her into contempt, and prevent her from occupying her rightful position in society are slanderous per se, meaning they are actionable without proof of special damages.


Facts:

  • A defendant, Stewart, made a spoken statement about a young female plaintiff, Malone.
  • The substance of the statement was that Malone was a hermaphrodite.
  • The statement was intended to be, and was, deeply insulting and socially damaging.
  • Malone did not claim to have suffered any specific monetary or pecuniary loss as a result of the statement.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff, Malone, filed a slander action against the defendant, Stewart, in the Court of Common Pleas (a trial court).
  • The defendant demurred to the complaint, arguing that the words alleged were not actionable without proof of special damages.
  • The Court of Common Pleas sustained the demurrer, dismissing the plaintiff's case.
  • The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the state's highest court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Are spoken words imputing that a female is a hermaphrodite, which tend to wound her feelings and exclude her from society, actionable per se without an allegation of special damages?


Opinions:

Majority - Read, J.

Yes. Spoken words imputing that a female is a hermaphrodite are actionable per se. Such a charge is a gross slander calculated to wound feelings, bring ridicule and contempt, exclude the subject from social intercourse, and destroy her hopes of marriage. The court reasoned that this type of injury is 'infinitely worse than a charge of incontinence' and that to deny a remedy would be a 'disgrace to the law.' The court rejected the argument that special, pecuniary damages must be proven, asserting that the law must protect reputation and feeling with the same vigor it protects commercial interests. It concluded that the injury to a woman's social standing and character is a profound harm that the law must recognize on its own terms, applying the 'spirit of the law' to provide a remedy for such a gross wrong.



Analysis:

This decision significantly expands the common law categories of slander per se, which traditionally required proof of special damages unless the words imputed a major crime, a loathsome disease, or incompetence in one's profession. The court creates a new category based on social and emotional harm, specifically tailored to protect a woman's reputation and standing in society. This ruling reflects a judicial willingness to adapt common law principles to address perceived social injustices, prioritizing reputational and emotional well-being over strict requirements of proven economic loss. It sets a precedent for recognizing non-pecuniary, social injuries as legally sufficient for a defamation claim.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Malone v. Stewart (1846) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Malone v. Stewart