Opinion ID: 1662213
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Nature of Statutory Right

Text: In Brunson v. Ranks Army Store, 161 Neb. 519, 73 N.W.2d 803 (1955), this court held that there existed no commonlaw or statutory right of action for invasion of privacy in this state. More than two decades later, the Legislature saw fit to modify the law by enacting the rights of privacy law, Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 20-201 through 20-211 (Reissue 1987) and 25-840.01 (Reissue 1985), which defines limited rights to privacy. Section 20-204 provides: Any person, firm, or corporation which gives publicity to a matter concerning a natural person that places that person before the public in a false light is subject to liability for invasion of privacy, if: (1) The false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (2) 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. Thus, the gravamen of the conduct made actionable by the foregoing statute is the giving of publicity. In construing the almost identical Restatement provision adopted in an earlier case by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Polin v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 768 F.2d 1204 (10th Cir. 1985), concluded that the circulation of the Polins' credit report to 17 subscribers of the credit reporting service for their exclusive use was not sufficient publicity to give the Polins a claim for false light invasion of privacy. Id. at 1207. In so ruling, the court relied upon the requirement of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, comment a. (1977), that the matter be communicated `to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge.' 768 F.2d at 1206. The court in Moore v. Big Picture Co., 828 F.2d 270 (5th Cir.1987), agreed that widespread publicity was necessary to sustain an action for a false light invasion of privacy and noted that courts which have addressed the issue have almost universally adopted the definition of `publicity' contained in § 652D, Comment a of the Restatement.  828 F.2d at 273. The Moore court thus concluded that as only one or two government employees were told that the plaintiff was the source of defendant's inside information, there was not sufficient publicity to sustain a false light invasion of privacy action. Furthermore, since the communications to the government employees could be released only under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) (1982), the matter was not substantially certain to become one of public knowledge. See, also, cases cited by the Moore court: Krochalis v. Insurance Co. of North America, 629 F.Supp. 1360 (E.D.Pa.1985); Bromhall v. Rorvik, 478 F.Supp. 361 (E.D.Pa.1979); Brauer v. Globe Newspaper Co., 351 Mass. 53, 217 N.E.2d 736 (1966); and LaMon v. Westport, 44 Wash.App. 664, 723 P.2d 470 (1986). Additionally, it is essential to a false light invasion of privacy claim that the publicized matter be false. See, Machleder v. Diaz, 801 F.2d 46 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, Machleder v. CBS, Inc., 479 U.S. 1088, 107 S.Ct. 1294, 94 L.Ed.2d 150 (1987); Rinsley v. Brandt, 700 F.2d 1304, 1307 (10th Cir.1983) (Thus, in a false light privacy action, as in a defamation action, truth is an absolute defense); Cibenko v. Worth Publishers, Inc., 510 F.Supp. 761 (D.N.J.1981); Bisbee v. John C. Conover Agency, 186 N.J.Super. 335, 341-42, 452 A.2d 689, 692 (1982) (This tort form of invasion of privacy is analagous [sic] to defamation, in that the statement which gives rise to the cause of action must be untrue); the Restatement, supra, § 652E, comment a. at 395 ([I]t is essential to [establish false light invasion of privacy] that the matter published concerning the plaintiff is not true). While it is true that at one point in her amended petition Schoneweis asserted that the disclosure was to her father, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law, she also averred that the disclosure placed her in a false light with her friends and family. Giving the amended petition a liberal construction, as is required, it can be factually inferred that there was a broader publicity than only to the three named relatives. Whether the evidence would support that inference and thereby support a finding of sufficiently broad publicity is, of course, another matter. Nonetheless, the publicity allegations, coupled with the assertion that the disclosure of Schoneweis' financial condition was false and made recklessly and the inference that the false light in which she was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, would be sufficient to state a cause of action under the provisions of § 20-204.