Terwilliger v. Wands

New York Court of Appeals · 1858 · Torts

17 N.Y. 54 (1858)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsDefamationSlanderSpecial Damagesactionable per sepublicationrepetitionimpaired reputation

Facts

The defendant spoke slanderous words that were not actionable per se to several people, including Heiper and Wands. The words spoken to Heiper were communicated to the plaintiff by Heiper, who was the plaintiff's intimate friend, while other statements were repeated to others and later spread more broadly. The plaintiff claimed special damages in the form of illness and inability to labor after hearing the reports. The proof showed that his illness began considerably after Heiper's communication and immediately after he heard what Wands had said, at a time when he also knew the story was widely circulating.

Issue

When slanderous words are not actionable per se, can the plaintiff recover based on illness and inability to labor allegedly caused by hearing the words repeated? Also, are damages caused by repetition of the words attributable to the original speaker?

Rule

For words not actionable per se, the plaintiff must prove special damages that are the natural, immediate, and legal consequence of the defendant's words. As a general rule, when a hearer repeats slanderous words to another, the repetition is a wrongful act for which the repeater alone is liable, so damages caused by the repetition are not the natural and legal consequence of the original utterance. Special damages sufficient to support such an action must arise from actual impairment of reputation and some positive loss flowing directly and legitimately from that disparagement; mere wounded feelings, sickness, or inability to labor do not suffice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Albany, Nora Keene told Devin Holt that Mira Solis had once falsified an expense log. The statement was not slander per se. After hearing local gossip, several longtime clients stopped hiring Mira for bookkeeping jobs, and she can trace the cancellations to people who said they no longer trusted her.

If Mira sues Nora for slander based on words not actionable per se, which is the strongest basis for recovery?

Explanation. For words not actionable per se, the plaintiff must prove special damages that are the natural, immediate, and legal consequence of the defendant’s words. The required special damages must arise through actual impairment of reputation and some positive loss, such as loss of customers. Emotional upset alone is insufficient, and republication by others is generally treated as their separate wrong.