Code Details

Civil Code – CIV
DIVISION 1. PERSONS [38 – 86] ( Heading of Division 1 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 12. )
PART 2. PERSONAL RIGHTS [43 – 53.7] ( Part 2 enacted 1872. )

Exact Statute Text

Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:

1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;

2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;

3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;

4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or

5. Which, by natural consequence, causes actual damage.

(Amended by Stats. 1945, Ch. 1489.)

Civil Code § 46 Summary

California Civil Code § 46 defines “slander” as a specific type of defamation. It refers to a false and unprivileged statement made verbally, or through radio, or other mechanical means, that harms a person’s reputation. For a statement to be considered slander under this statute, it must fall into one of five categories without needing proof of specific harm (slander per se), or cause actual damage:

1. Accusations of Crime: The statement falsely claims someone has committed a crime, been indicted, convicted, or punished for one.
2. Diseases: The statement falsely claims someone currently suffers from an infectious, contagious, or “loathsome” disease.
3. Professional Harm: The statement directly harms someone in their job, business, or profession by alleging they are generally unqualified or by making a claim that naturally tends to reduce their profits.
4. Sexual Misconduct/Impotence: The statement falsely claims someone is impotent or lacks chastity.
5. Actual Damage: Any other false and unprivileged oral statement that, as a natural consequence, causes the person to suffer actual harm or loss.

Purpose of Civil Code § 46

Civil Code § 46 serves a critical purpose in California law by providing a clear definition of slander, a form of defamation. Its existence aims to protect individuals’ reputations from the damaging effects of false spoken words. In a society where information, both true and false, can spread rapidly, this statute provides a legal framework for individuals to seek redress when their character, livelihood, or social standing is unjustly harmed by unprivileged oral statements.

The statute distinguishes between certain categories of slander that are considered so inherently damaging that harm is presumed (slander *per se* – categories 1-4) and other statements that require proof of actual damage (category 5). This distinction streamlines legal proceedings for the most egregious forms of reputational harm, acknowledging that certain false accusations are almost always detrimental. By defining what constitutes slander, the law encourages truthful communication and holds individuals accountable for statements that cause undue harm, thus promoting civility and fairness in public discourse.

Real-World Example of Civil Code § 46

Imagine Sarah, a highly respected interior designer in a small town, is competing for a major contract to design a new hotel. During a local community event, a rival designer, Mark, loudly tells a group of potential clients and town officials that Sarah was recently “convicted of embezzling funds” from her previous employer, adding that she’s “untrustworthy with large budgets.”

This statement is entirely false; Sarah has a spotless professional record. Mark’s statement is an oral publication, and it is unprivileged. It falls under Civil Code § 46, subdivision 1, as it falsely charges Sarah with a crime (embezzlement) and also under subdivision 3, as it tends directly to injure her in her profession by imputing general disqualification (untrustworthiness with money) in a way that would naturally lessen her profits and chances of securing the hotel contract.

Even without proving she *lost* the specific contract (though that would add to damages), the statement itself is actionable as slander under Civil Code § 46 due to its nature, allowing Sarah to pursue a defamation lawsuit against Mark for the harm to her reputation and business.

Related Statutes

Several statutes are directly related to or commonly referenced alongside Civil Code § 46, providing a broader framework for defamation law in California:

• Civil Code § 44 – Defamation: This foundational statute defines defamation generally as false and unprivileged communication that exposes a person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or causes them to be shunned or injured in their occupation. It establishes that defamation is accomplished by either libel or slander.
• Civil Code § 45 – Libel Defined: This statute defines libel, the other form of defamation, specifically as defamation by written words, images, or other fixed representations. It contrasts directly with Civil Code § 46, which focuses on oral or broadcast communications.
• Civil Code § 47 – Privileged Publication or Broadcast: This crucial statute outlines various circumstances under which a communication, even if defamatory, is legally “privileged” and thus cannot form the basis of a defamation lawsuit. Examples include statements made in legislative, judicial, or other official proceedings. This privilege is a common defense against slander claims under Civil Code § 46.
• Civil Code § 48a – Libel and Slander (Newspaper, Radio, Television Broadcast): This statute imposes specific requirements for plaintiffs seeking damages for libel or slander against newspapers, radio broadcasters, or television broadcasters. It often requires a demand for correction (retraction) before a lawsuit can be filed and limits the types of damages recoverable.

### Case Law Interpreting Civil Code § 46

California courts have frequently interpreted Civil Code § 46 to clarify its application. Here are a few notable cases:

• Noonan v. Rousselot, 239 Cal. App. 2d 244 (1966): This case involved a statement implying the plaintiff had syphilis. The court discussed the “loathsome disease” clause (subdivision 2), confirming that such statements, if false and unprivileged, constitute slander per se, meaning that specific damages do not need to be proven for the plaintiff to recover. The court also reiterated the general principles of slander.
• Albertini v. Schaefer, 97 Cal. App. 3d 822 (1979): This case involved statements made about an attorney’s professional conduct. The court examined subdivision 3, which addresses injury to a person’s profession or business. It clarified that statements which naturally tend to injure a person in their occupation, or impute a general disqualification for their profession, fall under this category as slander per se.
• Regan v. Smith, 87 Cal. App. 4th 880 (2001): This case dealt with allegations of child molestation against a teacher. The court affirmed that falsely charging any person with a crime, particularly one involving moral turpitude, falls squarely within subdivision 1 of Civil Code § 46 and constitutes slander per se.

Why Civil Code § 46 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

While Civil Code § 46 primarily addresses reputational harm, its principles can intersect with personal injury litigation in several significant ways. For clients, understanding this statute is vital when their personal injuries are compounded by false statements, and for attorneys, it opens avenues for additional claims or defenses.

1. Emotional Distress and Damages: False and slanderous statements, especially those that attack a person’s character, profession, or health, can cause severe emotional distress. In personal injury cases where a plaintiff is already suffering physical or emotional trauma, subsequent slander can exacerbate their condition. The emotional distress caused by slander can become an element of damages recoverable in a broader personal injury claim, particularly if it meets the criteria for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
2. Loss of Earning Capacity: If a personal injury prevents someone from working, and a slanderous statement further damages their professional reputation (as described in subdivision 3), it can significantly hinder their ability to return to their former profession or find new employment. This directly impacts their claim for lost wages and future earning capacity, making the slander a relevant factor in calculating comprehensive damages.
3. Reputational Harm as a Separate Claim: In some personal injury scenarios, the act causing the physical injury might also involve slander. For example, if an assault occurs alongside false accusations shouted publicly, a plaintiff might pursue both a battery claim (personal injury) and a slander claim to cover both physical and reputational harm.
4. Strategic Considerations for Plaintiffs: For plaintiffs, Civil Code § 46 provides a tool to seek justice for non-physical harms that arise from or are related to their personal injury event. It allows them to hold defendants accountable for verbal attacks that can be just as devastating as physical harm, especially in professional or social contexts.
5. Defense Arguments: For defense attorneys, understanding the elements of slander, particularly the “false and unprivileged” requirements and the categories under subdivisions 1-5, is crucial. They may argue that statements were true, privileged, or did not meet the specific definitions of slander per se, or that no actual damages resulted if the statement falls under subdivision 5.

In essence, Civil Code § 46 ensures that individuals have recourse when their good name is unjustly tarnished by spoken falsehoods, a right that can be particularly significant when navigating the complex and often emotionally charged landscape of personal injury claims.