Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Globe International, Inc.
19 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2097, 786 F. Supp. 791, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3069 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A publication may be liable for false light invasion of privacy for publishing a person's photograph alongside a fabricated and highly offensive story, even if a claim for defamation fails, when the publisher acts with actual malice by recklessly disregarding the possibility that readers will construe the fictional story as conveying actual facts about the person.
Facts:
- Nellie Mitchell, a 96-year-old resident of Mountain Home, Arkansas, had operated a local newsstand since 1963 and was a well-known figure in her community.
- In 1980, a publication called the Examiner, owned by Globe International, Inc., published a factually accurate article about Mitchell, which included her photograph.
- On October 2, 1990, the Sun, a tabloid also owned by Globe International, published the same photograph of Mitchell.
- The photograph appeared next to the headline: 'SPECIAL DELIVERY World’s oldest newspaper carrier, 101, quits because she’s pregnant!'
- The accompanying article was a fabricated story about a fictitious 101-year-old Australian newspaper carrier named 'Audrey Wiles' who became pregnant by a millionaire client.
- The Sun's editor, John Vadar, testified that articles were often created 'top of the head' by writers who were given a headline and picture, and that they had assumed Mitchell was deceased when they used her photograph.
- The Sun publication regularly mixed sensational, fabricated stories with articles that were presented as factual news, without any disclaimers or labels distinguishing fiction from fact.
- As a result of the publication, Mitchell was teased, became upset, embarrassed, and humiliated, and attempted to buy all available copies of the tabloid to prevent others from seeing it.
Procedural Posture:
- Peoples Bank and Trust Company, as conservator for Nellie Mitchell, sued Globe International, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
- The complaint alleged defamation, invasion of privacy by placing the plaintiff in a false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The case was tried before a jury from December 2 to December 4, 1991.
- The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant, Globe International, on the defamation claim.
- The jury found for the plaintiff, Mitchell, on the false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
- The jury awarded the plaintiff $650,000 in compensatory damages and $850,000 in punitive damages, and the court entered judgment on the verdict.
- Globe International filed a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, for remittitur of the damages or for a new trial.
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 tabloid publisher's use of an individual’s photograph in conjunction with a fabricated, sensational article, within a publication that does not distinguish between fact and fiction, constitute false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Arkansas law?
Opinions:
Majority - H. Franklin Waters, Chief Judge
Yes. A publisher's use of an individual’s photograph with a fabricated and highly offensive article can constitute false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress where the publication's methods demonstrate a reckless disregard for how readers might interpret the content. For the false light claim, the court found there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find 'actual malice.' The publisher's practice of mixing factual and fictional stories without distinction and creating stories 'top of the head' demonstrated a reckless failure to anticipate that readers would construe the fictional article as conveying actual facts about Mitchell. The court noted that a false light claim is distinct from defamation; the jury could find the publication 'highly offensive' for the false light claim even if it did not find it 'defamatory' (i.e., harmful to reputation). For the intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrage) claim, the court found the jury could reasonably conclude that publishing Mitchell’s photograph amidst lurid and bizarre headlines was 'extreme and outrageous' conduct. The emotional distress suffered need not be proven by objective evidence like medical bills, as the anguish itself is the injury.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the distinction between the torts of defamation and false light invasion of privacy, affirming that a plaintiff can prevail on the latter even when a defamation claim fails. The decision's significance lies in its application of the 'actual malice' standard to the publisher's overall methodology. It establishes that a reckless business practice of blurring the lines between fact and fiction can satisfy the constitutional requirement of actual malice, rather than requiring proof of malice specific to the individual statement's falsity. This precedent serves as a significant check on tabloid-style publications, preventing them from using the defense that a story is too absurd to be believed when their entire format is designed to leave readers uncertain about what is true.
Unlock the full brief for Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Globe International, Inc.