Legal Definitions - in mitiori sensu

The Latin phrase in mitiori sensu translates to "in a milder or more favorable sense." This legal principle was historically applied in cases of slander, which involves spoken defamation.

Under this rule, if a statement made by a defendant could be interpreted in two different ways—one that would make it slanderous and another that would render it harmless or non-defamatory—the courts would choose the milder, more favorable interpretation for the defendant. The purpose of this rule was to limit the number of slander lawsuits and prevent individuals from being held liable for statements that had an innocent explanation.

Here are some examples illustrating how in mitiori sensu would apply:

• Example 1: Ambiguous Association

  Imagine a situation where a person says, "I heard that Mr. Henderson was involved with the company's recent financial irregularities."

  This statement could be interpreted in two ways:

  • Harmful interpretation: Mr. Henderson was complicit in or directly responsible for the financial wrongdoing.
  • Milder interpretation: Mr. Henderson was merely part of a committee that discussed the irregularities, or he was simply aware of them without being personally involved in any wrongdoing.

  Under the principle of in mitiori sensu, a court would historically lean towards the milder interpretation, assuming Mr. Henderson was only tangentially connected to the discussion or awareness of the issues, rather than implying his guilt. This would protect the speaker from a slander claim.

• Example 2: Questionable Possession

  Consider a scenario where a neighbor remarks, "I saw Ms. Chen take a package from your doorstep this morning."

  This statement also presents an ambiguity:

  • Harmful interpretation: Ms. Chen stole the package.
  • Milder interpretation: Ms. Chen was picking up the package on behalf of the homeowner, or she was authorized to retrieve it for safekeeping.

  If this statement were the basis for a slander lawsuit, the rule of in mitiori sensu would guide the court to interpret "take" as Ms. Chen legitimately handling or safeguarding the package, rather than committing theft. By choosing the less damaging interpretation, the statement would not be considered slanderous, and the neighbor would not be held liable.