Kim is a store clerk held at gunpoint in a robbery. The robber orders her to remove her clothing. The police are called to the scene and catch the robber. The store videotape shows Kim’s ordeals, and a still photo is printed in a newspaper with the headline, “Clerk Strips for Robber.” The story also says that Kim previously worked as an exotic dancer at a local club. While Kim had previously worked at the club, she did bookkeeping and was not an exotic dancer. What kind of actions can Kim bring against the newspaper? Explain what she has to prove and what defenses the newspaper might raise.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Kim may bring a civil action based on several counts of intentional torts against the newspaper. She may allege libel, and an invasion of privacy based on false light and unreasonable intrusion on private facts.

The libel claim involves the maligning of one’s reputation. A plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an untrue statement of fact and it was intentionally published. The newspaper may defend by claiming that the headline was true. The newspaper may claim that Kim is a public figure and that she cannot recover for the untrue statement that she was an exotic dancer unless she can show actual malice, or that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement. Kim would claim that she is not a public figure, because she only became part of the public awareness due to this incident.

The right of privacy protects someone’s right to life without being subjected to undesired publicity. Invasion of privacy torts include the tort of unreasonable intrusion, which occurs when the defendant intentionally intrudes on the privacy of the plaintiff in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and public disclosure of private facts when the defendant has disclosed facts of a type that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and those facts are not a matter of legitimate public concern. The truth of the matters published in these torts for invasion of privacy is not a defense. The plaintiff may also allege that the defendant intentionally put the plaintiff in false light that is highly offensive to a reasonable person. This tort is easier to prove than defamation, because the statement must be merely offensive rather than defamatory of the plaintiff’s reputation. It would be up to a court to determine if the allegations fall into these categories of invasion of privacy torts.