A guard, in front of other shoppers, loudly accuses a customer of theft. Investigation reveals the customer was innocent. Civil Code §§44-46 most directly support which claim?
Explanation
Civil Code §44 defines defamation as either libel (written) or slander (oral). §46 lists slander per se categories — including false statements charging a person with crime — which require no proof of special damages. Loudly accusing a shopper of theft in front of others, when false, is the textbook slander per se case. Defenses include truth (absolute) and qualified privilege under §47(c) protecting communications made without malice to interested parties. But public, loud accusations to bystanders exceed any qualified-privilege scope and may also support intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Best practice: keep accusations private and factually grounded.
Law Reference: Cal. Civil Code §§44-46Practice all 200 questions free — no signup required.
Related questions on this topic
- A PPO hires a guard without conducting the BSIS-mandated background check. The guard later commits an assault against a patron. Beyond respondeat superior, the PPO may face liability under which independent theory?
- A patron sues a guard under 42 U.S.C. §1983 (federal civil rights statute) alleging a Fourth Amendment violation. The threshold issue for most private-security cases is:
- California's Bane Act (Civil Code §52.1) differs from federal §1983 in that the Bane Act:
- A guard privately reports a suspected shoplifter to the store manager and to responding police. The shopper turns out to be innocent and sues for slander. What defense most likely applies?
- California recognizes both common-law and statutory invasion-of-privacy claims. Civil Code §1708.8 ('physical' and 'constructive' invasion of privacy) most directly addresses:
- What is the statute of limitations for civil false-imprisonment and battery claims against a security guard in California?
Last reviewed: · editorial process