Hancock V. Karpinski's Case

Based on Hancock, the court will unlikely conclude that the statements by Moore can be considered a slander per se. In Hancock, the plaintiff and defendant were employed by the Texas State University’s medical school where Hancock worked as an associate professor under Variyam. They had a dispute over the transfer of patients that led to an exchange of letters in which Variyam accused Hancock of lack of professionalism and Hancock accused Variyam of lack of veracity and lying (or telling half truths). In our case, Karpinski was accused of falsifying time cards. Because of the accusations by Hancock, Variyam was removed from his position of the Chair of the Division (of the medical center). Similarly, Karpinski was fired from the school district, where he was employed as a school driver. In Hancock, and the court concluded that statements by Defendant were not a slander per se because they did not ascribe the lack of necessary skills that were required in Plaintiff’s profession. In Karpinski’s case, statements by Moore, although negatively reflected on his character, accusing him of dishonesty does not reflect negatively on his skills and essential ability necessary for a bus driver. Based on this analysis we can assume

In Skillern, the plaintiff was shopping at the defendant market and was accused of theft. He took Defendant to court alleging that the defendant accused him of a crime of theft. In our case, Karpinski was accused by Moore falsifying time cards. In Skillern, the plaintiff sued for slander per se, based on the accusation of crime. The court decided that the word used against plaintiff needs to accuse him of committing an actual crime or moral turpitude. The Moore statement, accusing Karpinski of dishonesty, does not construe any allegation to a specific crime or moral turpitude, and the court will unlikely consider Moore statements as a slander per