MANN
v.
ROOSEVELT SHOP
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.
This case involves a slander claim where a store employee allegedly made derogatory remarks about a white woman's social standing compared to Black individuals. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the statements, while insulting, did not constitute slander because they did not allege specific defamatory facts.
No, the statements made by the employee do not constitute slander. While the remarks were insulting, they were an expression of opinion regarding the plaintiff's social standing and did not allege specific facts that would injure her reputation.
“The action of slander is to redress an injury to the reputation of a person. In that sense the injury to the individual is indirect or remote. Redress in the court does not extend to spoken words constituting a personal insult only.”
Explains the legal standard for slander, distinguishing it from mere insult.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, a white woman, was in the defendant's store when an employee allegedly said to her, "You are not as good as a Negro. I was hired here t…
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.
Action by Lottie Mann against Roosevelt Shop, Inc., a corporation trading and doing business as Radio Center, for slander. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed. On this appeal we review a judgment holding plaintiff's declaration bad. The action is for slander. The plaintiff, a white woman, while in defendant's store, claims she was slandered by having the following language addressed to her by defendant's agent and employee while acting within the scope of employment:
"You are not as good as a Negro. I was hired here to see that Negros were not pushed around. Negroes have a kind, loving heart and you came from Georgia and you are not as good as a Negro."
"You are not good enough to associate with Negro women or sleep with a Negro man."
As a result of the spoken words plaintiff avers she was injured in her good name, fame and reputation and has been humiliated and brought into public scandal.
Plaintiff relies upon our opinion, Sharp v. Bussey, 137 Fla. 96, 187 So. 779, also 121 A.L.R. 1148, at page 1151, for a reversal of the judgment. In distinguishing these cases as we propose to do, it is well to re-examine some well-recognized authorities on the subject of defamation. The action of slander is to redress an injury to the reputation of a person. In that sense the injury to the individual is indirect or remote. Redress in the court does not extend to spoken words constituting a personal insult only. See Foundations of Legal Liability by Street, Vol. 1, page 285; Restatement of the Law of Torts, Chapter 24 — Defamation; 33 Am.Jur., Libel and Slander. In the case at bar we have only the expression of an opinion relating to the plaintiff's social standing, whereas in the case of Sharp v. Bussey, supra, there was a direct and specific charge of a fact which, if true, would injure the plaintiff. In that respect the cases are essentially different. The case at bar presents a case of gross insult; however the law affords no redress for insult alone. See MacIntyre v. Fruchter, Sup., 148 N YS. 786.
We also call attention to the annotations in 121 A.L.R., page 1151, following the report of our case of Sharp v. Bussey.
It follows from what we have said the judgment is affirmed.
CHAPMAN, SEBRING and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross v. Gore, 48 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1950)…ity attorney. And the reason for his unpopularity is the suits he has filed against the city and county mandamusing them to assess all properties at full cash value as of Jan. 1." This was not libelous per se. See Mann v. Roosevelt Shop, Inc., Fla., 41 So. 2d 894. And, without detailing the voluminous allegations of the declaration by which a case of libel per quod is sought to be stated, we say merely that they are likewise insufficient in this respect. When the statement alleged to be libelous could not pr…
-
Julia Slocum and Homer v. Slocum, 100 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1958)…Law of Torts, 49 Harv. L.Rev. 1033. Cf. Cason v. Baskin, 155 Fla. 198, 20 So. 2d 243, 168 A.L.R. 430, quoting Sec. 4, Declaration of Rights, Fla.Const. F.S.A. Appellee urges that we are foreclosed by the case of Mann v. Roosevelt Shop, Inc., Fla., 41 So. 2d 894, 895, wherein the Court stated: “The case at bar presents a case of gross insult; however the law affords no redress for insult alone. See MacIntyre v. Fruchter, Sup., 148 N.Y.S. 786.” But that language was obviously confined to those cases where an…
-
Walsh v. The Miami Herald Publ'g Co., 80 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1955)…And even absent the element of injury to trade or profession, imputations of untruthfulness have been considered actionable per se. See Restatement of Torts, Chapter 24, Sec. 569, Comment g. Appellee relies upon Mann v. Roosevelt Shop, Inc., Fla., 41 So. 2d 894, holding that a “personal insult only” is not actionable. It does not appear from that case that there was any publication at all, and even if there were, the facts upon which the decision was predicated render it wholly inapplicable here. Appellee…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sharp v. Bussey, 137 Fla. 96 (Fla. 1939)