 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission
Close, Not Exact Match
|
Cain v. Hearst Corp., 878 S.W.2d 577 |
Texas Supreme Court |
1994 |
|
Chapter |
18 |
Title |
Privacy |
|
Page |
780 |
Topic |
The Privacy Torts |
|
Quick Notes |
Texas does not recognize the false light invasion of privacy action |
||
|
Book Name |
Torts Cases, Problems, And Exercises. Weaver, Third Edition. ISBN: 978-1-4224-7220-0. |
||
|
Issue |
o Whether Texas recognizes the tort of false light invasion of privacy? No. o Whether there is a statute of limitations for the primary tort of false light? No need to answer. |
|
Procedure |
|
|
Circuit |
o Certified false light invasion of privacy questions sent to the Texas Supreme Court. |
|
Supreme |
o Decline to recognize the tort of false light. Not knowing what speech may subject the speaker or writer to liability would have an unacceptable chilling effect on freedom of speech. |
|
Facts |
Reasoning |
Rules |
|
Pl Cain Df Hearst Corp o Certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. o Texas Supreme Court is asked to decide two issues: 1) whether Texas recognizes the tort of false light invasion of privacy, and 2) if Texas recognizes this tort, which statute of limitations governs that action. o Because false light substantially duplicates the tort of defamation while lacking many of its procedural limitations, we answer the first question in the negative, thereby dispensing with the need to answer the second question. What happened? o Clyde Cain is a prison inmate in the Texas Department of Corrections serving a life sentence for murder. o He sued the Hearst Corporation, the Houston Chronicle Publishing Company, claiming that a newspaper article invaded his privacy by placing him in a false light. o The article, which appeared in the Chronicle on June 30, 1991, referred to Cain as a burglar, thief, pimp, and killer. o Cain's sole complaint is that the article said he was a member of the "Dixie Mafia" and that he had killed as many as eight people. Cain asserted that these statements put him in a false light with the public. Suit was filed in state court one and one-half years after the article was published. |
Genesis of Invasion of Privacy o Does not embrace the fourth type of invasion of privacy.
False Light Elements [Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 652E] o One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if o (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and o (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
o It remains the least-recognized and most controversial aspect of invasion of privacy.
Courts Thoughts On False Light o We reject the false light invasion of privacy tort for two reasons: 1. It largely duplicates other rights of recovery, particularly defamation; and 2. It lacks many of the procedural limitations that accompany actions for defamation, o Thus unacceptably increasing the tension that already exists between free speech constitutional guarantees and tort law.
Duplication of Other Causes of Action (Analysis) o The false light action permits recovery for injuries caused by publicity that unreasonably places the plaintiff in a false light before the public. o Although not explicitly required by the Restatement definition, most jurisdictions, including the lower Texas courts that have recognized the action, require that a statement be false if it is to be cognizable under the false light doctrine. o If we were to recognize a false light tort in Texas, it would largely duplicate defamation. o Recovery for defamation requires the communication of a false statement. o The damage elements are similar.
False Light Damage Elements o The principal element of actual damages for false light claims is typically mental anguish, but physical illness and harm to the plaintiff's commercial interests have also been recognized.
Freedom of Speech Considerations Defamation and false light differ for two reason (1) Defamation actions are subject to a number of procedural requirements to which invasion of privacy actions are not subject, and (2) Certain publications not actionable under a defamation theory might be actionable under false light. o Adopting a false light tort in this State would unacceptably derogate constitutional free speech rights under both the Texas and the United States Constitution.
Procedural and Substantive Difference o Actions for defamation in Texas are subject to numerous procedural and substantive hurdles. For example, accounts of governmental proceedings, public meetings dealing with a public purpose, or any "reasonable and fair comment on or criticism of an official act" are privileged under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies o Broadcasters are generally not liable in defamation for broadcasts made by third parties. o Damages may be mitigated by factors of public apology, correction, or retraction.
Non-Defamatory Speech o In theory, the false light action may provide a remedy for certain non-defamatory speech against which there may be no other remedy in tort law. o It is questionable whether a remedy for non-defamatory speech should exist at all. o Defamation is restricted to speech is only restricted if it defames. o False Light may be bought against any untruth to which the subject of the speech takes umbrage [offense]. o News Media o Defamation alert to facts that diminish. o False Light any innocuous fact may be the basis for liability. o Highly Offensive is not associated with defamation o Falls to draw a line between lawful and unlawful conduct. o Uncertainty o Not knowing what speech may subject the speaker or writer to liability would have an unacceptable chilling effect on freedom of speech. o Incongruent with high priority of the freedom of speech.
Decline to recognize the tort of false light.
DISSENT o The torts are designed to protect two different interests.
Communications Difference o There are communications which, based on their content, are not defamatory but may be false light violations of privacy because they are highly offensive.
Protection Interests o Defamation preserves individuals' reputation interests o False light invasion of privacy safeguards individuals' sensitivities about what people know and believe about them.
Damages o Both torts allow mental anguish damages.
Level of Publicity o False light requires significantly broader publication than does defamation. o Defamation only requires publication to a single individual o False light requires widespread dissemination. |
|
|
Class Notes |
|
False Light Elements o One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if o (a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and o (b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.
False Light Damage Elements o The principal element of actual damages for false light claims is typically mental anguish, but physical illness and harm to the plaintiff's commercial interests have also been recognized.
Defamation o In a defamation suit, a public official must prove the Df had serious doubts as to the truth of his publication in order to demonstrate actual malice.
Reckless Conduct Analysis o Reckless conduct is not measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing. o There must be sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. o Publishing with such doubts shows reckless disregard for truth or falsity and demonstrates actual malice.
|