Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Charles Ausburger v. Kenneth Hoysradt
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On December 14, 2010, the court received evidence at a hearing in damages pursuant to Practice Book § 17-34. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant and the defendant's wife, who is the plaintiff's sister, were engaged in dissolution litigation. In seeking custody of the couple's child, the defendant filed a motion with the court and testified in conjunction with that motion. The written motion and defendant's testimony falsely asserted that the plaintiff was a sexual deviant. Under Practice Book § 17-34(a), the court must regard these allegations of libel per se and slander per se as proven.
In cases of libel or slander per se a plaintiff may be entitled to general damages, special damages, and punitive damages if malice is present. Proto v. Bridgeport Herald Corp., 136 Conn. 551, 571 (1950). Punitive damages consist of nontaxable costs of litigation. Id. However, in this case, the plaintiff represented himself so no attorneys fees were incurred. Nor were expert witness fees nor other nontaxable costs generated. Thus, no punitive damages may be awarded. Also, the plaintiff failed to produce evidence that he sustained any special damages as a consequence of the defamatory comments. Therefore, only general damages are available in this matter.
General damages consist of such harm as injury to reputation, humiliation, and mental anguish. Id. The plaintiff offered no evidence that anyone in the community except the parties' families have any knowledge of the defamatory statements. He produced no medical bills and scant evidence of loss of his ability to work or engage in life's activities. Essentially, his concern is that someone in the future may access his sister's dissolution file and learn of the defendant's false accusations against him. Given the remoteness of that possibility and the paucity of evidence of general damages, the court awards the plaintiff general damages in the amount of $2,500 plus costs.
Sferrazza, J.
Sferrazza, Samuel J., J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: TTDCV096000662S
Decided: December 14, 2010
Court: Superior Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)