MICHAEL SPROVERO, APPELLANT,
v.
BETTY J. MILLER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Oral statements imputing conduct incompatible with a contractor's business constitute slander per se, even if referring to single acts, and do not require proof of special damages.
Plaintiff contractor sued for slander based on oral statements made by defendant regarding a construction job. No special damages were claimed.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Slander Per Se cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff Michael Sprovero, a general building contractor, appeals from an adverse final summary judgment entered below in a slander action wherein no special damages were claimed. The trial court concluded that the oral statements sued upon did not constitute slander per se and, as no special damages were claimed, summary judgment for the defendant was proper. We disagree and reverse.
The oral statements sued upon arose over a construction job done by the plaintiff for the defendant Betty J. Miller. These statements impute conduct and characteristics to the plaintiff which are plainly incompatible with the proper exercise of the plaintiff's business; as such, the statements constitute slander per se. Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Inc., 66 So. 2d 495, 497 (Fla. 1953); Commander v. Pedersen, 116 Fla. 148, 156 So. 337 (1934); Owner’s Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ott, 402 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Carter v. Sterling Finance Co., 132 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961). This result is not changed by the fact that some or all of the slanderous statements may have had reference to single acts of misconduct allegedly committed by the plaintiff as, in any event, these alleged acts fairly implied the lack of qualities and skill the public is reasonably entitled to expect from persons engaged in the construction business. See e. g., Restatement (2d) of Torts § 573, comment e (1977).
The final summary judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The reversal shall be without prejudice to the defendant to raise any free speech defenses which may be applicable in this case. See e. g., Owner’s Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. Ott, 402 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (Hubbart, C. J., concurring) and authorities collected.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rand Hoch v. Rissman, 742 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…ship and constitutes slander per se. See Hood (complaint alleging that the defendant falsely stated that the plaintiff, while in office, had used public funds to pave private property stated a cause of action for slander per se); Sprovero v. Miller, 404 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (statements which imputed conduct and characteristics to the plaintiff which were incompatible with the exercise of his construction business constituted' slander per se); Wolfson (statement by defendant that plaintiff was “invite…
-
Fla. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. NEW York Post Co., Inc., 568 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ns to alert the reader that the statements made are merely opinion. Instead the author sets forth what appear to be specific factual observations about the hospital’s service which clearly, if untrue, would damage its reputation. Sprovero v. Miller, 404 So. 2d 793, 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, 66 So. 2d 495 (Fla.1953) (statements which attribute conduct or characteristics to a plaintiff which are clearly incompatible with its business are libelous per se). The import of the st…
-
Thompson v. Orange Lake Country Club, Inc., 224 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (M.D. Fla. 2002)…ith the proper exercise of his lawful business, trade, profession or office is slander per se. Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, 66 So.2d 495 (Fla.1953); Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So.2d 774 (Fla. 4th D.C.A.1973); Sprovero v. Miller, 404 So.2d 793 (Fla.3d D.C.A.1981) (statements which imputed conduct and characteristics to the plaintiff which were incompatible with the exercise of his construction business constituted slander per se); see also Chiavarelli v. Williams, 256 A.D.2d 1…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Campbell v. Jacksonville Kennel Club, Inc., 66 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1953)
- Commander v. Pedersen, 116 Fla. 148 (Fla. 1934)
- Owner's Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. OTT, 402 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Carter v. Sterling Fin. Co., 132 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)