Opinion ID: 2045157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substantial Evidence of Damages

Text: Defendants further argue that Wilson failed to present substantial evidence of damages from Arndt's alleged slanderous communication to Dr. Hamsa. Slander per se, however, is actionable without proof of damage. Lara, 512 N.W.2d at 786; Rees v. O'Malley, 461 N.W.2d 833, 839 (Iowa 1990); Vinson, 360 N.W.2d at 115-16. Recovery is limited to those damages which were a natural and probable consequence of the original slander or its repetition or republication. Lawrence v. Grinde, 534 N.W.2d 414, 418 (Iowa 1995) (quoting Brown v. First Nat'l Bank, 193 N.W.2d 547, 555 (Iowa 1972)); see also Rees, 461 N.W.2d at 839. There is no indication in the record that the jury awarded ordinary damages above and beyond that permitted by this standard. Wilson's testimony sufficiently met the requirement that the jury be presented with evidence upon which the consequences of the [slander] can be judged, evidence such as the nature of the plaintiff's reputation before the libel was published and the extent of the publication. Rees, 461 N.W.2d at 839 (citing Kelly v. Iowa State Educ. Ass'n, 372 N.W.2d 288, 300 (Iowa App.1985)). Wilson testified that as a result of this incident, he was unable to return to work because of lack of self-esteem and distrust of his employer, and that he suffered damage to his reputation as a result of Arndt's statements. He particularly emphasized the detrimental effect the communication had on his relationship with Dr. Hamsa, who accused Wilson of lying. Defendants' contention that Wilson's reputation before the slanderous communication was less than exemplary and that the scope of the publication was limited does not necessarily preclude a recovery. As we stated in Rees, [r]equiring evidence of reputation and extent of publication is necessary so that a jury can determine the extent of injury, but is not imposing a burden on the plaintiff of proving damages. Id. Thus, evidence of Wilson's prior reputation is only useful in determining the amount of damages awarded, not whether they should be awarded at all as a matter of law. After considering the evidence, the jury returned a general verdict in the amount of $4000 in compensatory damages for Wilson. The district court, in considering defendants' motion for JNOV, noted that at the very least Wilson's reputation and relationship with Dr. Hamsa were disrupted by Arndt's statements. We agree with the district court that, in viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, sufficient evidence exists to support submission of the damage claim and the jury's verdict.