Legal Definitions - actionable per se

The legal term actionable per se refers to a situation where a particular act or statement is considered so inherently wrongful or harmful that the law presumes damage has occurred, even without specific proof of financial loss or injury. When something is "actionable per se," a person can bring a lawsuit based on the act or statement itself, without needing to demonstrate concrete harm to establish the initial wrong. The focus then shifts to proving the extent of the damages, rather than proving that damage occurred at all.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Defamation (Libel or Slander): Imagine a local newspaper publishes a false article claiming that a well-respected restaurant owner has been secretly using expired ingredients and violating health codes. In many jurisdictions, falsely accusing someone of a serious crime, a loathsome disease, or professional misconduct is considered defamation actionable per se. This means the restaurant owner would not need to immediately prove specific financial losses, such as a drop in customers or lost income, to establish that a defamatory act occurred. The law presumes that such a false accusation inherently harms the owner's reputation and business standing, allowing them to proceed with a lawsuit based on the publication itself.

• Negligence Per Se (Statutory Violation): Consider a state law that mandates all construction companies install safety netting around the perimeter of building sites above a certain height. A construction company fails to install this netting on a high-rise project. If a worker is injured because they fell from the building in an area where netting should have been, the company's failure to install the required netting could be considered negligence per se. This means the injured worker would not need to prove that a "reasonable construction company" would have installed netting; the mere violation of the safety statute establishes the company's breach of duty. The worker would still need to prove that the lack of netting *caused* their injury and the extent of their damages, but the wrongful act (breach of duty) is established "by itself" through the statutory violation.