In this case, it is likely that Revered Hucks will succeed in suing Mr. Webster for the claim of slander per se if Rev. Hucks can prove that the Jamisons and the Thorntons heard and understood Mr. Webster theft comment.
In Harris, evidence proved that the assistant store manager’s statements were heard and understood because the cashier returned the plaintiff’s bad check. However, here, it may only be implied that by the Thornton’s not returning the Rev. Huck’s call and a lower than usual church attendance, that Mr. Webster theft comment at the picnic was communicated and understood. Therefore, if Rev. Huck’s can show that the Jaminsons, the Thorntons, or some other third party heard and understood Mr. Webster’s statement, then the third
In Harris, evidence proved that the assistant store manager’s statements were heard and understood because the cashier returned the plaintiff’s bad check. However, here, it may only be implied that by the Thornton’s not returning the Rev. Huck’s call and a lower than usual church attendance, that Mr. Webster theft comment at the picnic was communicated and understood. Therefore, if Rev. Huck’s can show that the Jaminsons, the Thorntons, or some other third party heard and understood Mr. Webster’s statement, then the third