Per Quod

Also found in: Wikipedia.

Per Quod

[Latin, Whereby.] With respect to a complaint in a civil action, a phrase that prefaces the recital of the consequences of certain acts as a ground of special harm to the plaintiff.

At Common Law, this term acquired two meanings in the law of Defamation: with respect to slander, it signified that proof of special damages was required; in regard to libel, it meant that proof of extrinsic circumstances was required.

Words that are actionable per quod do not furnish a basis for a lawsuit upon their face but are only litigable because of extrinsic facts showing the circumstances under which they were uttered or the damages ensuing to the defamed party therefrom.


Extrinsic Evidence; Libel and Slander.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

PER QUOD, pleading. By which; whereby.
     2. When the plaintiff sues for an injury to his relative rights, as for beating his wife, his child,, or his servant, it is usual to lay the injury with a per quod. In such case, after complaining of the injury, say to the wife, the declaration proceeds, "insomuch that the said E F, (the wife,) by means of the premises, then and there became and was sick, sore, lame, and disordered, and so remained and continued for a long space of time, to wit, hitherto, whereby he, the said A B, (the plaintiff,) lost", &c. 2 Chit. Pl. 422; 3 Bl. Com. 140. It seems that the per quod is not traversable. 1 Saund. 298; 1 Ld. Raym. 410; 2 Keb. 607; 1 Saund. 23, note 5.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
References in periodicals archive ?
The statements in the 10-K and internal memo were not defamatory per se, so they are actionable (if at all) only on a theory of defamation per quod. This type of claim requires proof of special damages causally connected to the publication of the defamatory statements.
It will show that the best solution is allowing this cause of action to continue under defamation per quod as opposed to defamation per se.
Adeyekun are suing all the Defendants, individually and collectively, for Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Violation of the Celestial Church of Christ's own Policy and Procedures, Defamation Per Quod, Defamation Per Se, Retaliation Promissory Estoppel, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Loss of Consortium and Damages in excess of two million dollars.
4: "Et dicit Hieronymus, quod dicuntur ab Apolline Pythio, quia hoc genus artis magicae invenit, per quod videntur mortui suscitari, et de futuris aliqua praedicere: sicut legitur 1 Reg.
Agitur enim de institutione a Concilio Tridentino exoptata, quod decrevit ut in singulis dioecesibus institueretur <<Seminarium perpetuum>> (2), per quod Episcopus posset tirones ad sacerdotium <<alere et religiose educare et ecclesiasticis disciplinis instituere>> (3).
By the time the case reached the High Court, the issues were whether the plaintiff could recover in an action per quod servitum amisit and for pure economic loss in the tort of negligence.
Illinois distinguishes between two categories of defamation: per se and per quod. The first is easier to recover for than the second.
A few come close, such as Risk Me and Per Quod. I don't know why they came so close and went no further.
For example, if an action is brought by both the injured worker and the spouse, the portion of the settlement awarded to the spouse for a per quod claim (i.e., for pain and suffering, loss of consortium, etc.) is usually not subject to the lien.