Opinion ID: 1140705
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Putting one in a false position in the public eye

Text: The plaintiffs next argue that Saint James School and Bell invaded the students' privacy by expelling them from Saint James School and thereby assuring that they would continue to be viewed as porn stars or porn queens. They contend that the students' expulsion from Saint James School confirmed to the public that they were indeed the students rumored to be in the photographs and cast aspersions on their character. We initially note that the plaintiffs have failed to cite any authority in support of this argument and thereby fail to comply with Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R.App. P. This Court has stated the following regarding a claim of invasion of privacy by putting one in a false light: `One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if `(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and `(b) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.' Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So.2d 1, 12 (Ala.2003)(quoting Schifano v. Greene County Greyhound Park, Inc., 624 So.2d 178, 180 (Ala.1993), quoting in turn Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E (1977)). `A false-light claim does not require that the information made public be private,' but it does require that `the information . . . be false.' Regions Bank v. Plott, 897 So.2d 239, 244 (Ala.2004) (quoting Butler, 871 So.2d at 12). The false-light version of an invasion-of-privacy claim requires that a defendant give publicity to a matter that places one in a false light. As discussed above, the plaintiffs have failed to present evidence indicating that Saint James School and Bell gave publicity to the photographs. Additionally, the plaintiffs have failed to present any evidence indicating that, in expelling the students, Saint James School and Bell acted in reckless disregard as to the false light in which the students would potentially be placed. On the contrary, Bell, as discussed above, acted well within the authority delegated to him as the headmaster of Saint James School in expelling the students. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' have failed to establish a prima facie case of invasion of privacy by placing the students in a false light.