Opinion ID: 437275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hustler's Liability for Placing LaJuan in a False Light

Text: 20 In this appeal we are concerned with the two forms of privacy invasion that share the element of publicity--false light and disclosure of private facts. See Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 652A comment d & illustration (1976). Hustler's primary challenge to its liability focuses on the standard of care. Hustler argues that the First Amendment requires, at a minimum, that a publisher must act in reckless disregard of the falsity and the offensiveness of material before it can be liable for invasion of privacy by placing an individual in a false light. Hustler claims that it did not publish in reckless disregard, because it did not know of or did not have serious doubts about the falsity of the consent form. 21 The district court, guided by language in Gill v. Snow, 644 S.W.2d 222 (Tex.App.--Ft. Worth 1982, no writ), assumed that publishing with reckless disregard was a required element of a false light claim and found that Hustler acted in reckless disregard of the falsity of the published material and of the false light in which LaJuan would be placed. Noting that no Texas court had established a standard of care for a private facts case, the district court did not address the question because it found that Hustler published the photo of LaJuan with reckless disregard for her right to be free from publication of a matter that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. The district court found that Hustler was liable for invasion of LaJuan's privacy under either theory. Under the false light theory, Hustler's publication falsely represented that LaJuan consented to the submission and publication in a coarse and sex-centered magazine of a photograph depicting her in the nude. Moreover, the publication falsely attributed a lewd fantasy to LaJuan. Under public disclosure of private facts, Hustler gave publicity to the highly private fact of LaJuan's nude appearance, the publication of which, absent her consent, would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and was not of legitimate public concern. 22 The fault under each theory was Hustler's publication without LaJuan's consent. The central inquiry concerning Hustler's liability focuses on its procedure for verifying the truth of consent forms submitted with photographs for publication in the Beaver Hunt section. 1 Although the district court did not specifically link LaJuan's recovery to one of the two privacy causes, we infer that she recovered on the false light theory because some of her damages resulted from publication of the false and highly offensive fantasy. 2 This component of damages could not have been awarded under the private facts theory because the fantasy did not truthfully reflect LaJuan's private life. See Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 652D & comments a & b (1976); id. Sec. 652E comment b (1976). Therefore, we address the standard of care applicable to a media defendant who invades a private figure's privacy by placing that person in a false light. Hustler does not dispute that LaJuan was and remains a private figure.
23 The Supreme Court first enunciated the actual malice standard in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), a defamation case. The Court held that, to comply with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, states could not impose liability on a defendant who published defamatory matter concerning a public official unless the publisher knew of the falsity of the matter or acted in reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. The Court later applied the prevailing constitutional standard to false light privacy actions in Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967). The Court noted that it applied the New York Times actual malice requirement in the discrete context of a statutory privacy action brought by a private individual who was involved in a matter of public interest. In a divided opinion, the Court later required private figures in defamation actions to prove actual malice if the published material was a matter of public or general concern. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 91 S.Ct. 1811, 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971). 24 The Court substantially altered the direction of First Amendment law in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974). See generally, Wade, The Communicative Torts and the First Amendment, 48 Miss.L.J. 671, 692-97 (1977); Robertson, Defamation and the First Amendment: In Praise of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 54 Tex.L.Rev. 199 (1976). Abandoning Rosenbloom 's focus on whether defamatory matter was a matter of public concern, the Gertz Court established a public figure-private figure dichotomy. See Braun v. Flynt, 726 F.2d at 249 & n. 6. Defendants who published statements concerning public figures were entitled to heightened protection because (1) the press required breathing space in conveying information about public figures; (2) public figures could be said, in some sense, to have sought out or volunteered for notoriety or public discussion, and (3) public figures had access to media in which they could respond to and attempt to correct false statements. By contrast, the states had a greater interest in protecting private figures who had not invite[d] attention and comment and who generally lack effective opportunities for rebuttal. Id. at 344, 94 S.Ct. 3009. The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual. Id. at 347, 94 S.Ct. at 3010. After Gertz, states were permitted to establish negligence as a standard of care in defamation actions by private plaintiffs so long as the recovery was limited to actual damages. To recover punitive damages, however, private plaintiffs were required to satisfy the New York Times actual malice standard. Most state courts considering the question in the wake of Gertz adopted negligence as the minimum standard of liability required by the Constitution for defamation actions by private plaintiffs. See Foster v. Laredo Newspapers, Inc., 541 S.W.2d 809, 819 (Tex.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1123, 97 S.Ct. 1160, 51 L.Ed.2d 573 (1977); Mathis v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 455 F.Supp. 406, 412 n. 2 (E.D.Pa.1978); Wade, supra, 48 Miss.L.J. at 706.
25 In Foster, the Texas Supreme Court held that 26 a private individual may recover damages from a publisher or broadcaster of a defamatory falsehood as compensation for actual injury upon a showing that the publisher or broadcaster knew or should have known that the defamatory statement was false. 27 Foster, 541 S.W.2d at 819. The court also noted that, as a predicate for liability, the content of the false statement must warn a reasonably prudent editor or broadcaster of its defamatory potential. Id. at 819-20 (quoting Gertz, 418 U.S. at 348, 94 S.Ct. at 3011). 28 No Texas court has set forth the standard of care applicable to publishers who invade the privacy of a person, public or private, by placing him in a false light. 3 Therefore, Erie requires us to make our own conclusion as to the standard of care that the Texas Supreme Court would require to hold a publisher liable for placing a private plaintiff in a false light. See Bryan v. Kershaw, 366 F.2d 497, 500-01 (5th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 959, 87 S.Ct. 1030, 18 L.Ed.2d 108 (1967); 19 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 4507 (1982). Texas intermediate appellate courts have indicated that they would generally follow the guidelines of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See Gill, 644 S.W.2d at 224; Moore v. Charles B. Pierce Film Enterprises, Inc., 589 S.W.2d 489 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). On the particular issue of standard of care under false light, however, the Restatement qualifies its actual malice standard with a caveat. See Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 652E caveat & comment d (1976). Comment d notes that, in view of Gertz, the caveat leaves open the possibility that liability may be based on a showing of negligence as to truth or falsity: If Time v. Hill is modified along the lines of Gertz v. Robert Welch, then the reckless-disregard rule would apparently apply if the plaintiff is a public official or public figure and the negligence rule will apply to other plaintiffs. Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 652E comment d at 399. 29 We are convinced that a Texas court would apply no different standard of care to a false light claim than it would to a defamation action. We note that the principal justification in Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374, 87 S.Ct. 534, 17 L.Ed.2d 456 (1967), for applying the actual malice standard to a private figure was the subject of the published material--a matter of public concern. Gertz, however, undermines the authority of Hill. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 498 n. 2, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 1048 n. 2, 43 L.Ed.2d 328 (Powell, J., concurring). Rather than asking if the publication is newsworthy or concerns a public issue to determine if the actual malice standard applies, Gertz requires that courts inquire into the type of damages (actual or punitive) and the type of plaintiff (private or public) involved in a case. See Braun v. Flynt, 726 F.2d at 249 & n. 6. Soon after Gertz was decided, the Court considered Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co., 419 U.S. 245, 95 S.Ct. 465, 42 L.Ed.2d 419 (1974), a false light case. The Court there said, this case presents no occasion to consider whether a State may constitutionally apply a more relaxed standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of false statements injurious to a private individual under a falselight theory of invasion of privacy .... Id. at 250, 95 S.Ct. at 469. The Court left the question open because no party objected to the jury instruction, which stated that a finding of actual malice was required before the publisher could be held liable. Id. 30 This circuit, however, applying Texas law in a recent false light case, helps decide the constitutional question. In Braun v. Flynt, 726 F.2d at 249, the court held that the defendant, who placed a private figure in a false light, was not entitled to the constitutional protection afforded publishers by application of actual malice as a standard of liability. The court went on to affirm the jury's finding of actual malice, however, because of the punitive damages in the case. Id. at 256-57. In light of Braun, we hold that Gertz applies equally to false light and defamation cases, and that states are permitted, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, to impose liability for actual damages on publishers who negligently place private figures in an offensive false light. Courts and commentators have agreed with this conclusion. See Fitzgerald v. Penthouse International, Ltd., 525 F.Supp. 585, 602-03 (D.Md.1981) (dictum), aff'd, 691 F.2d 666 (4th Cir.1982); Dresbach v. Doubleday & Co., 518 F.Supp. 1285, 1288-92 (D.D.C.1981); J. Nowak, R. Rotunda & J. Young, Constitutional Law at 787 (1978); Wade, supra, 48 Miss.L.J. at 707; Hill, Defamation and Privacy Under the First Amendment, 76 Colum.L.Rev. 1205, 1274 & n. 321 (1976); Note, Right of Privacy--Availability of Injunctive Relief for Invasions of Privacy, 39 Mo.L.Rev. 647, 657 (1974). 31 We think that Texas courts would apply the negligence standard of liability enunciated in Foster v. Laredo Newspapers, Inc., 541 S.W.2d 809, 819-20 (Tex.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1123, 97 S.Ct. 1160, 51 L.Ed.2d 573 (1977), to false light privacy actions brought by private plaintiffs seeking actual damages. Accordingly, we need not evaluate the evidence of Hustler's awareness or acts while verifying the forged consent form against the stringent, subjective standard of reckless disregard set forth in St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968), 4 and in A.H. Belo Corp. v. Rayzor, 644 S.W.2d 71, 84-85 (Tex.App.--Ft. Worth 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.). 32 Under the Foster negligence standard the record prominently shows that Hustler carelessly administered a slipshod procedure that allowed LaJuan to be placed in a false light in the pages of Hustler Magazine. The nature of material published in the Beaver Hunt section would obviously warn a reasonably prudent editor or publisher of the potential for defamation or privacy invasion if a consent form was forged. The wanton and debauched sexual fantasies and the intimate photos of nude models were of such a nature that great care was required in verifying a model's consent. 33 In verifying the forged consent form sent with LaJuan's picture, Hustler did not even follow its own questionable procedure. The district court found that, during a brief telephone conversation, a Hustler research assistant merely asked a few leading questions of the same person who submitted the forged consent form. James Heinsch, who was Hustler's managing editor for the February 1980 issue, testified that verifying by asking leading questions was a breach of Hustler's verification policy. Hustler also claimed that its policy was to throw out or place in a Never to Run category photos and consent forms that gave rise to suspicions concerning their accuracy. The Hustler staff, however, did not question the accuracy of the name, LaJuan Wood, even after employees suspected that it was a pseudonym. The fact that the $50 check was to be sent to a person other than LaJuan at what was alleged to be LaJuan's address also did not trigger an inquiry. 34 The verification procedure was deficient even when Hustler followed it. When LaJuan's photo was published, Hustler did not require the submission of a social security number or a driver's license number, from which Hustler could easily have verified its source. Nor did Hustler require notarization of the consent form. Another flaw in the verification procedure was exposed in cases where the model did not list a home telephone number. If such a model's photo was selected, the model would call Hustler after she had received a mailgram. A model engaged in a fraud would know that she was calling Hustler, and would be prepared to answer questions that confirmed the information she submitted. Because Hustler did not call back as an additional safeguard, the model could call from any undisclosed telephone number. At least when Hustler called a number listed on the form it would have an element of surprise. By asking for a model by name, Hustler would probably get that person on the phone before she knew Hustler was the caller and, in a case of fraud, before she was prepared to supply false answers. Hustler acted negligently. 35 Because we affirm the judgment for LaJuan on the false light theory, we need not address Hustler's liability for publicly disclosing the highly private, but truthful, fact of her nudity.