False light invasion of privacy is recognizable claim distinct from defamation

Law Reporter, Jun 2000

False light invasion of privacy is recognizable claim distinct from defamation.

Bueno v. Denver Publ'g Go., - P.2d -, No. 97CA1569, 2000 WL 231993 (Colo. Ct. App. Mar. 2,2000).

A Colorado appellate court held that a claim for false light invasion of privacy is a recognizable claim distinct from defamation.

Here, Buenos picture appeared in a newspaper article detailing the criminal activities of his family. Bueno did not have contact with his family, nor was he involved in his family's criminal conduct. He sued the newspaper, alleging, among other claims, invasion of privacy for placing him in a false light. A jury found in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appealed, arguing that the state should not recognize a claim for false light invasion of privacy because it is duplicative of a defamation claim and dilutes established principles of defamation claims.

Affirming, the appellate court observed that other courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have recognized claims for false light invasion of privacy. Most of these courts relied on the Restatement (Second) of Torts 652E (1977) to establish the elements for the claim. To prove false light invasion of privacy, the court noted, plaintiff has to show (1) defendant publicized false information concerning plaintiff that placed plaintiff in a false light before the public, (2) the false light in which plaintiff was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (3) defendant knew or acted in reckless disregard of the falsity and the false light in which plaintiff would be placed.

The court rejected defendant's argument that a false light invasion of privacy claim is duplicative of a defamation claim. A statement is defamatory if it lowers a person's reputation in the eyes of a "respectable minority" of a community. False light invasion of privacy, however, depends on how a publication is viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person. The claims contain different elements and standards of proof, the court noted. Thus, a false light invasion of privacy claim is not duplicative of a defamation claim.

Moreover, the court disagreed with defendant that false light invasion of privacy claims weaken and dilute established principles behind defamation claims. The primary harm compensated in a defamation action, the court found, is damage to reputation. Right of privacy cases, however, compensate damage due to mental distress resulting from public exposure. Because the principles behind the two claims differ, the court concluded, one does not weaken the other.

Plaintiff's Counsel

*Roger T. Castle, Denver, Colo.

Documents in this case are available through the Court Documents section in the back of this issue, courtesy of Mr. Castle.

An asterisk (*) appearing beside the name of plaintiff's counsel indicates that the attorney is an ATLA member. To obtain additional information about a case report, contact counsel through your ATLA membership directory.