Document: 419 U.S. 245 95 S.Ct. 465 42 L.Ed.2d Margaret Mae CANTRELL et al., Petitioners,v.FOREST CITY PUBLISHING CO. al. No. 73—5520. Argued Nov. 13, 1974. Decided Dec. 18, Syllabus Petitioners, a mother and her son, brought diversity action against respondents, newspaper publisher reporter, for invasion of privacy based on feature story in the discussing impact upon petitioners' family death father bridge collapse. The concededly contained number inaccuracies false statements about family. District Judge struck claims punitive damages lack evidence malice 'within legal definition that term,' but allowed case to go jury 'false light' theory privacy, after instructing jurors liability could be imposed only if they found were published with knowledge their falsity or reckless disregard truth, returned verdict compensatory damages. Court Appeals reversed, holding should have directed since his finding no striking was 'actual malice' established New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 254, thus determination there knowing truth required liability. Held: erred setting aside jury's verdict. Pp. 251—254. (a) record discloses when he dismissed not referring standard common-law is generally under state tort law support an award would focus defendant's attitude toward plaintiff's material published, determining petitioners had failed introduce truth. 251—252. (b) Moreover, sufficient findings respondents falsehoods petitioners, particularly respect 'calculated falsehoods' petitioner mother's being present prepared, respondent reporter's writing within scope employment at so as render vicariously liable respondeat superior story. 252—254. 484 F.2d 150, reversed remanded. Harry Alan Sherman, Pittsburgh, Pa., petitioners. Smith Warder, Cleveland, Ohio, respondents. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 Cantrell four minor children this Federal Forest City Publishing Co., Cleveland newspaper, Plain Dealer, Joseph Eszterhas, reporter formerly employed by Richard Conway, Dealer photographer. Cantrells alleged article Sunday Magazine unreasonably placed light before public through its many untruths. relating all plaintiffs actions three entirety, Mrs. oldest William. money favor these two plaintiffs. 2 Sixth Circuit that, First Fourteenth Amendments, granted respondents' motion Cantrells' claims. 150. We certiorari, 418 909, 94 3202, 41 1156. 3 * In December 1967, Cantrell's husband Melvin killed along 43 other people Silver Bridge across Ohio River Point Pleasant, W.Va., collapsed. Eszterhas assigned cover disaster. He wrote 'news feature' focusing funeral 4 Five months later, conferring editor photographer Conway Pleasant area write follow-up feature. men went residence, where talked took 50 pictures. home any time during 60 90 minutes residence. 5 Eszterhas' appeared lead August 4, 1968, edition Magazine. stressed family's abject poverty; children's old, ill-fitting clothes deteriorating condition detailed both text accompanying photographs. As done original, prize-winning disaster, used illustrate collapse lives area. 6 It conceded statements. Most conspicuously, although visit home, wrote, 'Margaret will talk neither what happened nor how are doing. She wears same mask non-expression she wore funeral. proud woman. Her world has changed. says it happened, town offered help them out refused take it.'1 Other significant misrepresentations details descriptions poverty which living dirty dilapidated conditions home. 7 so-called privacy. essence, publishing thereby making objects pity ridicule, damaged son William causing suffer outrage, mental distress, shame, humiliation.2 II 8 Time, Inc. Hill, 385 374, 87 534, 17 456, considered similar false-light, invasion-of-privacy action. interpreted Civil Rights Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 6, §§ 50—51 give 'newsworthy person' right name, picture portrait subject 'fictitious' report article. Material substantial falsification test recovery. U.S., 384—386, 540—541. Under doctrine courts awarded plaintiff James Hill complaint Life falsely reported new Broadway play portrayed experience held hostage escaped convicts. This Court, guided decision 84 710, 11 686, recognized constitutional limits State's power libel officials, protections speech press precluded application statute allow recovery reports matters interest absence proof defendant truth.' 388, S.Ct., 542. Although reasonably concluded from engaged falsehood recklessly disregarded stating 'the re-enacted' experience, trial judge's instructions confined such predicate Constitution. Id., 394, 545. 9 us, contrast judge did instruct been made truth.3 No objection parties knowing-or-reckless-falsehood instruction. Consequently, presents occasion consider whether State may constitutionally apply more relaxed broadcaster injurious private individual false-light announced applies cases. Cf. Gertz Robert Welch, Inc., 323, 2997, 789. Rather, sole question we need decide III 10 At close case-in-chief, demand charges 'was maliciously term.' introduced trial. Having determination, F.2d, 155. appears assumed Judge's term' 280, 726: 'with (a defamatory statement) not.' defined, course, term art, created provide convenient shorthand expression must permit officials recover publishers.4 such, quite different 'malice' case, malice—frequently expressed terms either personal ill wanton rights—would published. See 396 n. 12, 546 12. W. Prosser, Law Torts 9—10 (4th ed.). 12 verbal proceedings entirely unambiguous, conclusion inescapable rather than For demands damages, grant verdicts William's And, clear, fully aware meaning satisfied actual Thus, way harmonize virtually simultaneous rulings conclude, contrary Appeals, dismissing further fortified subsequent denial judgment n.o.v. alternative 13 clearly correct believing Cantrells.5 There dispute who testify, known untrue. particular, plainly implied observed 'wear(ing) nonexpression (at husband's) funeral.' These falsehoods,' justified untruth. 14 However, find therefore traditional doctrines superior.6 regularly Magazine, magazine testified staff writer frequently suggested stories like magazine. When approved idea told publish good. From evidence, conclude damage caused 15 foregoing reasons, remanded court directions enter affirming Eszterhas. 16 ordered. Reversed 18 DOUGLAS, dissenting. 19 I adhere views 401—402, 549, 456 (1967), those Black concurred, id., 398—401, 547—549. Freedom 'abridged' violation Amendments do today. line cases, course includes 686 (1964), seems me place Amendment rights midway point our ill-fated Betts Brady, 316 455, 62 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595 (1942), counsel. 'free' sense judge-made qualifications freedom withdrawn substance restored believe purpose enactment. 20 A accident catapulted into eye disaster became newsworthy. To make news turn subtle differences between stand head. Those current seldom objective, dispassionate view—or time—of scientific analysts. They deal fast-moving events 'spot' reporting. today's formula sits censor broad powers—not impose prior restraint, lay heavy press. sufficiently disenchanted let free claim. That regime thought some supervising better all. But installation Court's require amendment. Whatever might ultimate reach embraced, clear import reporting, lest frightened playing ignoble role Framers visualized. 21 affirm Appeals. legacy Bridge, Aug. p. 32, col. 1. law, remarkably little discussion relevant West Virginia counsel parties. however, recognize legally protected E.g., Housh Peth, 165 St. 35, 133 N.E.2d 340; Roach Harper, 143 W.Va. 869, 105 S.E.2d 564; Sutherland Kroger 144 673, 110 716. Publicity places one several distinct kinds invasions actionable rubric. Privacy, 48 Calif.L.Rev. 383, 398 401; Restatement (Second) § 652E (Tent.Draft 13). instructed part: '(T)he protection preclude(s) redress defendants 'Thus, burden prove preponderance assertions elements are: '(1) An unwarranted and/or wrongful intrusion affairs legitimate concern. '(2) '(3) Defendants' acts injury individuals ordinary sensibilities form outrage suffering, shame humiliation. your invaded (plaintiffs') you deliberate return defendants.' also charged jury: 'An act knowingly voluntarily intentionally because mistake innocent reason. 'Recklessness implies higher degree culpability negligence. Recklessly means wantonly, indifference consequence.' employ art. Instead, repeated every point. See, e.g., 390, 542, 543, sustained agree Appeals' insufficient Conway. photographs fair accurate depictions scenes testimony contradicted Nor responsible misstatements written short, simply shown participated portraying light. 'Any employee agent, become corporation, performed while acting employment. 'The matter T. imputed defendant, Company, information acquired information.' None objected

Category: 2