Legal Definitions - actionable per quod

The legal term actionable per quod refers to a type of claim where the harm or damage suffered by an individual or entity is not automatically presumed but must be specifically proven. For a lawsuit to proceed on this basis, the person bringing the claim (the plaintiff) must demonstrate that they suffered actual, concrete loss or injury directly as a result of the defendant's actions. The harm is not considered obvious or inherent; it requires specific evidence to establish its existence and connection to the wrongful act.

This concept is often contrasted with claims that are "actionable per se," where the harm is considered so obvious and inherent (e.g., falsely accusing someone of a serious crime) that it doesn't need to be specifically proven for the lawsuit to proceed.

Here are some examples illustrating actionable per quod:

• Example 1: Defamation of a Business Owner

  Imagine a local online forum where a user falsely posts that a small, independent bookstore owner "has a peculiar taste in literature." While this statement might be insulting or even perceived as negative, it doesn't inherently accuse the owner of a crime, professional incompetence, or a serious disease, which would typically make it "actionable per se." For the bookstore owner to successfully sue for defamation, they would need to prove specific financial harm. This might include demonstrating a measurable drop in book sales, the cancellation of a book club event, or a lost opportunity to host a prominent author, all directly attributable to the forum post. Without such demonstrable proof of actual loss, the claim would not be actionable per quod.

• Example 2: Slander Regarding a Hobbyist

  Consider a situation where, during a casual conversation at a neighborhood barbecue, one neighbor falsely tells another that a third neighbor, who is an avid amateur photographer, "always uses outdated equipment and takes blurry pictures." This statement, while potentially damaging to the photographer's reputation among peers, does not fall into categories of slander where harm is automatically presumed. For the photographer to pursue a defamation lawsuit, they would need to show concrete evidence of specific harm. This could involve proving they were passed over for a paid photography gig they were actively seeking, or lost a prize in a local photography competition, directly because of this particular false statement. If no such specific, demonstrable harm can be shown, the claim would not be actionable per quod.