Morganroth v. Whitall
411 N.W.2d 859, 161 Mich. App. 785 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A publication is not libelous if it is substantially true, even if it contains minor inaccuracies, embellishments, or colorful language. A claim for false light invasion of privacy requires a showing of unreasonable and highly objectionable publicity, which is not met if the statements are substantially true or are not extreme overstatements of the plaintiff's actual conduct.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a hairdresser, used a tool the court identified as a blowtorch for a technique she called 'Shi-lit'.
- Plaintiff also had an unusual style of dress, which included a silver holster for her blowtorch and a barrette made from a $100 bill.
- Defendant Whitall interviewed Plaintiff and wrote an article for the Detroit News titled 'Hot Locks: Let Shila burn you a new ’do.'
- The article described Plaintiff's blowtorch technique and her unique style of dress.
- The article also stated that Plaintiff applied hairdressing techniques to dogs, including coloring their fur and using the blowtorch on them.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint in the trial court against defendants Whitall and the Detroit News, alleging libel and invasion of privacy by false light.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition.
- The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of defendants.
- Plaintiff (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Michigan.
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 a newspaper article that describes a hairdresser's unconventional methods using colorful language and includes minor exaggerations, but is substantially true overall, constitute actionable libel or invasion of privacy by false light?
Opinions:
Majority - Sawyer, J.
No, a newspaper article that is substantially true, despite using colorful language and containing minor exaggerations, does not constitute actionable libel or invasion of privacy by false light. For a statement to be libelous, it must first be false. Reading the article as a whole, the court found it was 'substantially true.' The use of the term 'blowtorch' and the description of Plaintiff's 'slashed-to-there white jumpsuit' were deemed accurate based on photographic evidence. Regarding the statements about using a blowtorch on dogs, the court noted that Plaintiff failed to present any evidence to prove their falsity in response to the summary disposition motion. Moreover, even if that specific detail was inaccurate, it was not libelous in the context of the whole article, as Plaintiff did perform other hairdressing on dogs (tinting their fur) and promoted blowtorching as safe for humans. Similarly, the false light claim fails because the article's statements were substantially true and could not be considered 'highly objectionable' to a reasonable person, as they did not suggest Plaintiff harmed the animals but merely used techniques she advocated as safe.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the 'substantial truth' doctrine in defamation law, granting significant protection to publishers. It clarifies that minor inaccuracies or sensational language do not make an article defamatory so long as the 'gist' or 'sting' of the publication is true. The ruling also sets a high bar for false light claims, requiring the publicity to be 'highly objectionable to a reasonable person,' not merely unflattering or different from the publicity the plaintiff desired. This decision underscores that courts are hesitant to 'split hairs' over minor details when the overall portrayal is factually grounded, protecting journalistic expression from litigation over stylistic choices.
