Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co.
419 U.S. 245 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff in a false light invasion of privacy action can recover damages by proving that the defendant published falsehoods with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. A publisher can be held vicariously liable for such falsehoods created by its reporter acting within the scope of employment.
Facts:
- In December 1967, Melvin Cantrell died when the Silver Bridge collapsed over the Ohio River.
- Joseph Eszterhas, a reporter for the Plain Dealer newspaper, covered the disaster and focused on the Cantrell family.
- Five months later, Eszterhas and photographer Richard Conway returned to the Cantrell home for a follow-up story for the newspaper's Sunday Magazine.
- Margaret Cantrell, Melvin's widow, was not at home at any point during the reporters' visit.
- Eszterhas spoke with the Cantrell children and Conway took photographs.
- On August 4, 1968, the Plain Dealer published Eszterhas's article, which stressed the family's poverty and the poor condition of their home.
- The article contained numerous inaccuracies, including quotes and descriptions of Mrs. Cantrell's demeanor and emotional state, implying that Eszterhas had interviewed her during the visit.
Procedural Posture:
- Margaret Cantrell and her children filed a diversity action for invasion of privacy against Forest City Publishing Co., Joseph Eszterhas, and Richard Conway in a Federal District Court.
- The District Court judge struck the punitive damages claims and dismissed the actions of three of the children.
- A jury returned a verdict for compensatory damages in favor of Mrs. Cantrell and her son, William, against all three defendants.
- The defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the District Judge should have granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants.
- The Cantrells (petitioners) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does sufficient evidence that a reporter published an article with knowing or reckless falsehoods about a private family support a jury verdict for a 'false light' invasion of privacy claim against both the reporter and his publisher?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. The evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that the reporter and his publisher were liable for a false light invasion of privacy because the story contained calculated falsehoods published with knowledge of their untruth or with reckless disregard for it. The constitutional standard for liability in false light cases involving matters of public interest requires proof that the defendant published the report with 'actual malice'—knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, as established in Time, Inc. v. Hill. The evidence clearly showed that Eszterhas's article contained knowing falsehoods, particularly the detailed description of Mrs. Cantrell's presence and reactions during a visit at which she was not present. These 'calculated falsehoods' were sufficient for a jury to find liability. Furthermore, the publisher, Forest City Publishing Co., could be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, as Eszterhas was acting within the scope of his employment when he wrote the article for the newspaper's magazine.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
No. The First Amendment's protection of a free press should prevent damage awards in cases involving the reporting of newsworthy events, regardless of the 'actual malice' standard. The Cantrells became figures of public interest due to the bridge disaster, a newsworthy event. Subjecting the press to liability based on subtle distinctions between common-law malice and the 'actual malice' standard allows juries to act as censors, which has a chilling effect on reporting. To protect the press's intended role, reporting on matters of public import must be free from the threat of damages, even if it contains inaccuracies.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the 'actual malice' standard from New York Times v. Sullivan to false light invasion of privacy torts involving private individuals. It crucially clarifies that traditional agency principles, specifically respondeat superior, can be used to hold a media organization vicariously liable for the constitutional torts committed by its employees. The Court's analysis also distinguishes constitutional 'actual malice' (knowing or reckless falsity) from common-law malice (ill will), an important distinction for determining liability versus punitive damages in First Amendment cases.
Unlock the full brief for Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co.