holding that evidence defendant accused plaintiff of shoplifting was sufficient to prove slander per se
How later courts described this case
- holding that evidence defendant accused plaintiff of shoplifting was sufficient to prove slander per se
- holding no “initiation” where defendants gave information to police but defendants did not press charges or direct police to arrest the plaintiff
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge WELLS
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
As to plaintiff’s claims for slander and malicious prosecution, I respectfully dissent.
In my opinion, the circumstances surrounding the accusation by defendant’s agent that plaintiff was trespassing and looting were sufficiently disputed to leave a jury question as to whether defendant’s agent acted with a reckless disregard for the truth.
As to the malicious prosecution claim, it is clear to me that defendant’s agent procured the arrest of plaintiff, and that but for the accusations of defendant’s agent, there would have been no prosecution. Again, the question of whether defendant’s agent acted reasonably under all the circumstances is for the jury.
In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.