People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bobby Berosini Ltd.
895 P.2d 1269, 23 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1961, 111 Nev. 615 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A publication of true facts is not defamatory, and statements of opinion based on those disclosed true facts are constitutionally protected. A claim for intrusion upon seclusion requires an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, which is absent when conduct occurs in a semi-public workplace where it can be seen and heard by others.
Facts:
- Bobby Berosini was a famous animal trainer who performed with orangutans in a show at the Stardust Hotel in Las Vegas.
- Ottavio Gesmundo, a dancer in the same show, became concerned about how Berosini treated the orangutans backstage.
- From July 9 through July 16, 1989, Gesmundo used his personal video camera to secretly record Berosini in a backstage staging area before his performances.
- The resulting videotape depicted Berosini shaking, slapping, punching, and striking the orangutans with a rod-like object.
- Berosini consistently maintained that his actions were a necessary and proper form of discipline to control the animals and ensure the safety of the audience.
- Gesmundo provided copies of the edited videotape to animal rights organizations, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS).
- These organizations distributed the videotape to the media and made public statements characterizing Berosini's actions as 'abuse' and asserting that he beat the animals with 'steel rods.'
- Berosini claimed the rod was made of taped wood, not steel, but failed to produce it at trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Bobby Berosini sued People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), and several individuals in a Nevada state trial court.
- The complaint alleged claims including defamation and invasion of privacy (both intrusion upon seclusion and appropriation of likeness).
- The trial court issued a pretrial order limiting the defamation claims to the distribution of the videotape and to statements that Berosini 'regularly abuses his orangutans and has beaten them with steel rods.'
- Following a trial, a jury returned verdicts in favor of Berosini.
- The jury awarded Berosini damages totaling $4.2 million against the various defendants on the libel and invasion of privacy claims.
- The trial court entered a final judgment reflecting the jury's verdict and damage awards.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the actions of secretly videotaping an animal trainer's conduct backstage, distributing the accurate tape, and publicly describing the conduct as 'abuse' constitute actionable defamation or invasion of privacy under Nevada law?
Opinions:
Majority - Springer, J.
No. The distribution of an accurate videotape and the expression of opinions based on it are not actionable as defamation, nor does secretly filming conduct in a semi-public workspace constitute an invasion of privacy. First, regarding the defamation claims, the videotape itself is not defamatory because it is a true and accurate portrayal of events; truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Second, the statements that Berosini 'abuses' his animals are non-actionable 'evaluative opinions' based on the disclosed facts of the video. The public could watch the tape and form their own judgment, and under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. Third, the statement that the rod was 'steel' rather than wood is not defamatory as a matter of law, as this detail is immaterial and does not lower Berosini's reputation beyond the fact that he was striking the animals. Regarding the invasion of privacy claims, the intrusion tort fails because Berosini did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the backstage area, a workspace where others could see and hear him; his stated concern was preventing interference with the animals, not achieving secrecy. Furthermore, Gesmundo's conduct was not 'highly offensive to a reasonable person.' The appropriation tort fails because Berosini, as a celebrity, must sue under Nevada's statutory 'right of publicity' tort for commercial harm, not the common law 'appropriation' tort, which protects the personal privacy interests of non-celebrities.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the boundary between actionable defamation and constitutionally protected speech, particularly in the context of public debate over controversial issues like animal rights. By classifying the term 'abuse' as a non-actionable 'evaluative opinion' when based on disclosed true facts, the court provides strong protection for critics and commentators. The opinion also narrowly construes the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, emphasizing that a plaintiff must have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, which is often diminished in a workplace setting. Finally, the court's sharp distinction between the common law appropriation tort (for private individuals) and the statutory right of publicity (for celebrities) establishes a critical procedural requirement for public figures in Nevada seeking to protect the commercial value of their identity.
