Opinion ID: 2183176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Invasion of Privacy False Light Claim

Text: This court has relied on the Restatement[] (Second) [of Torts'] formulation of the law applicable to `invasion of privacy' in determining the appropriate contours of a cause of action for invasion of that right .... Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, 492 A.2d 580, 587 (D.C.1985) (citations omitted). An invasion of privacy  false light claim requires a showing of: 1) publicity 2) about a false statement, representation or imputation 3) understood to be of and concerning the plaintiff, and 4) which places the plaintiff in a false light that would be offensive to a reasonable person. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 652E (1977). Failure to establish any one of these elements will defeat a plaintiff's cause of action. Wolf, supra, 553 A.2d at 1220. Mr. Kitt argues that Capital Concerts invaded his privacy by casting him in a false light with a flawed impersonation calculated to make it appear that [he] was engaging in buffoonery inconsistent with his status as the principal clarinetist of a distinguished symphony orchestra. Moreover, he contends that a jury, not the trial court, should have decided whether the telecast was flattering or offensive. The trial court concluded, and we agree, however, that Mr. Kitt cannot establish a prima facie false light claim because he cannot show that the portrayal by the actor was of and concerning the plaintiff and highly offensive to a reasonable person. Although Mr. Kitt contends that Capital Concerts placed him in a false light by hiring an actor to impersonate him playing the clarinet, he agrees that the actor neither resembled him, nor played the way that he would. Certainly, his peers in the music industry would not have mistaken the actor for him. Moreover, there were four other clarinetists in the NSO and, unlike in other cases, there was no identification of the actor, either as Mr. Kitt, or as the principal clarinetist. Cf., Vassiliades, supra, (defendant used plaintiff's actual before and after plastic surgery photographs); Dempsey v. National Enquirer, 702 F.Supp. 934 (D.Maine 1989) (defendant specifically attributed authorship of article to plaintiff). Thus, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Kitt, we cannot conclude that the beauty shot was of and concerning him. See Schaffer v. Zekman, 196 Ill.App.3d 727, 143 Ill.Dec. 916, 554 N.E.2d 988, 991-92 (1990) (Plaintiff claimed false statement during editorial that `evidence was mishandled by the Medical Examiner's Office' was of and concerning him because the office employed only two toxicologists, and he was the chief toxicologist. Although dismissing on other grounds, the court noted that the statement did not name or refer to plaintiff, nor mention toxicologists or the chief toxicologist. At most, it refer[red] to a group of which [he] is a member, the ... Medical Examiner's Office.); Bernstein v. National Broadcasting Co., 129 F.Supp. 817, 832 (D.D.C. 1955) (concluding that only link between plaintiff and television character in fictionalized dramatization about him  the alleged physical resemblance of the actor to the plaintiff twenty years prior  was too tenuous a thread on which to permit a jury to hang identification, with consequent liability for invasion of privacy). In addition, the facts alleged by Mr. Kitt are insufficient to satisfy the highly offensive to a reasonable person requirement. Indeed, as the trial court indicated, the actor was not engaging in any sort of obnoxious or offensive behavior and it was unclear whether a musically sophisticated viewer would actually know who was playing. Consequently, based on the evidence presented, no jury could justifiably conclude that the beauty shot of a man in a tuxedo standing alone playing the clarinet would offend an ordinary, reasonable person. See Machleder v. Diaz, 801 F.2d 46, 49 (2d Cir.1986) (trial court erred in denying defendant's motions for a directed verdict and J.N.O.V. because no reasonable juror could have concluded that the alleged portrayal of plaintiff as intemperate and evasive or as an illegal dumper of chemical wastes was highly offensive), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1088, 107 S.Ct. 1294, 94 L.Ed.2d 150 (1987); Osby v. A & E Television Networks, No. 96-7347, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8656, at , 1997 WL 338855 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 1997) (no reasonable person could ... find the two scenes of [plaintiff] walking in an airport [in a segment profiling another person engaged in criminal activity] `highly offensive'). Nonetheless, Mr. Kitt contends that a jury, not the trial court, should have decided whether the beauty shot would be offensive to a reasonable performing artist. We have, however, previously stated that [w]hile determining offensiveness in an invasion of privacy case is usually the province of the jury, the trial court must make a threshold determination of offensiveness in discerning the existence of a cause of action for intrusion. Wolf, supra, 553 A.2d at 1219 (citations omitted). Moreover, the offensiveness of such alleged tortious conduct is measured by an ordinary, reasonable person standard, not that of a reasonable performing artist, as Mr. Kitt incorrectly suggests. Id.