Court Opinion

ID: 9558221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:04:42.756523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:29.672405
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
In affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion for nonsuit, the majority stated: “If the words used by the defendant were libelous per se, the motion was properly denied because, in that case, damage would be presumed.” I agree with that statement but not necessarily with what may be thought to be its corollary, — if the words used are not libelous per se, damages are not presumed.
There is respectable authority for the proposition that libel in any form is actionable without proof of special damages. It is not necessary in this appeal to determine whether or not that authority is correct; however, I specially concur to indicate that such a determination is still unresolved. See Prosser’s analysis of Oregon decisions in 46 Va L Rev 839, 846, footnote 50 (1960), and Dean Carpenter’s criticism of Oregon decisions in 7 Or L Rev 353 (1928).
O’Connell, J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.