Manuel applied for a variance from the local zoning ordinance in order to build a building. His neighbor Sandra appeared before the zoning board to speak in opposition to the application. At the hearing, Sandra testified under oath and made several

untruthful statements regarding Manuel's character which she believed, but which were not correct. The variance was denied. Manuel is now considering a lawsuit against Sandra for slander. Does Manuel have a valid cause of action for slander against Sandra? Explain. What are the elements that he must prove to win a case of slander? What defenses can Sandra raise to the action?

Slander is oral defamation, which consists of a false communication that injures a person's reputation by disgracing him and diminishing the respect in which he is held. It is an intentional tort and thus requires that the false statements be made with "intent," which is defined as "the desire to cause the consequences of an act or knowledge that the consequences are substantially certain to result from the act." In the case of a nonpublic figure, there is no requirement of "actual malice," or knowledge of the falsity or the reckless disregard for the truth. In the absence of any information indicating that Manuel is a public figure, the statements made by Sandra probably constitute defamation. Sandra could not raise the absolute defense of truth, because the statements were untrue. She also could not raise the First Amendment privilege, because Manuel is not a public figure. She might possibly raise a conditional privilege. If she acted in an excessive manner, a conditional privilege would not be available, and Sandra would be guilty of defamation.