Brief Fact Summary. Jose Solano, Jr., (P) was a TV celebrity who was allegedly represented in a false light by Playgirl (D) magazine, by the implication that he endorsed it or was represented in the nude inside the magazine, without any factual basis, since he had not posed for, given an interview to or appeared nude in the magazine.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. It is not appropriate to grant summary judgment in a false light case where a celebrity plaintiff gives sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably decide that the defendant did create a false impression of the plaintiff which could be very offensive, and could highly injure the plaintiff’s reputation; and that the defendant published this false impression with malice in a legal sense; and that actual injury resulted to the plaintiff by this false impression.
An action for invasion of privacy by placing the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye is in substance equivalent to a libel claim.
View Full Point of LawIssue. Is it appropriate to grant summary judgment in a false light case where a celebrity plaintiff gives sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably decide that the defendant did create a false impression of the plaintiff which could be very offensive, and could highly injure the plaintiff’s reputation; and that the defendant published this false impression with malice in a legal sense; and that actual injury resulted to the plaintiff by this false impression?
Held. (Fisher, J.) No. It is not appropriate to grant summary judgment in a false light case where a celebrity plaintiff gives sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably decide that the defendant did create a false impression of the plaintiff which could be very offensive, and could highly injure the plaintiff’s reputation; and that the defendant published this false impression with malice in a legal sense; and that actual injury resulted to the plaintiff by this false impression. Solano had to present the following evidence: (1) Playgirl had revealed false information about Solano to one or more persons which purported to be true but was false or created a false impression about him. (2) The information passed on was understood by the persons who received it as being a factual statement or implication of something that was highly offensive and would probably injure Solano’s good name. (3) Clear and convincing evidence that Playgirl had acted with an intention to injure him, or malice under the constitution. (4) Solano suffered damages by the information disclosed. In this case, it was reasonable for a jury to conclude that the Playgirl cover implied that Solano was not a clean and decent person as was thought hitherto, that he was ready to sell himself or was in such desperate straits that he had to sell himself naked to the magazine. He also presented evidence that the magazine’s editors had knowingly or without regard for possible consequences to him allowed this false impression to be created. There was clear proof that some of the editors had brought up this possibility beforehand. The question of damages is settled by Solano’s showing that he was embarrassed. The verdict is reversed.
Dissent. N/A
Â
Concurrence. N/A
Discussion. Some courts argue that a false light tort is needless since the same matter can be covered by a defamation suit, or on the other hand it raises questions as to free speech. However, other courts are of the opinion that a false light tort is useful in filling in the gaps in the defamation law.