Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
- Homepage »
- Torts »
- Other Torts
10. In a privacy action brought by the child's legal representative against the newspaper, the plaintiff will
When two parents were told that their child should repeat second grade, they sought to have him evaluated by a psychologist. The psychologist, who charged $300, determined that their child had a learning disability. Based upon the report, the school board placed the child in special classes. At an open meeting of the school board, the parents asked that the $300 they had paid to the psychologist be reimbursed by the school district. A reporter attending the meeting wrote a newspaper article about this request, mentioning the child by name. The parents were aware that the reporter was at the meeting.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
As held by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, to prevail against a defendant on defamation of a public figure, the plaintiff must establish actual malice by the defendant by demonstrating that the defendant (i) knew the statement was false, or (ii) had a reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.
As held by the United States Supreme Court in Gertz v. Robert Welch, to prevail against a defendant on defamation of a private person involving a matter of public concern, the plaintiff must demonstrate that (i) the defamation was false; (ii) the defendant was negligent; and that (ii) the defendant's negligence caused actual harm to the plaintiff.
Under a tort for invasion of privacy, a plaintiff can recover for four types of wrongs: (i) appropriation by the defendant of the plaintiff's picture or name for commercial advantage; (ii) intrusion by the defendant upon the plaintiff's affairs or seclusion; (iii) publication by the defendant of facts placing the plaintiff in a false light; and (iv) public disclosure by the defendant of private facts about the plaintiff.
To make a prima facie case for public disclosure of private facts, a plaintiff must show (i) publication or public disclosure by the defendant of private information about the plaintiff; and (ii) the matter made public is such that its disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. For liability to attach, the disclosure must be a public disclosure, and the facts disclosed must be private.
C is correct. The newspaper would not be liable for defamation, because the information it reported was true. However, the newspaper could still be liable for invading the parents' and child's privacy for publically disclosing private information. The disclosure was public because it was documented in a newspaper story, and the information included the name and diagnosis of a minor. Nevertheless, the parents would not recover against the newspaper. The facts about the child were disclosed at a public meeting, making them no longer private. Any fact disclosed at such a meeting is considered inherently newsworthy. Lastly, the information reported was not offensive such that it would violate ordinary decency standards.
A is incorrect. All facts disclosed at public meetings are considered inherently newsworthy, and the parents would be barred from recovery precisely because the information at issue was disclosed at a public meeting since this factor rendered it public and not private information.
B is incorrect. Although the child was under the age of consent and therefore his identity would normally be private, the parents will still be unable to recover. A newspaper cannot be held liable for disclosing the name of a minor that is a matter of public record. Under the facts as presented, the parents referred to their son at an open meeting. Therefore, the child's name was a matter of public record, and the newspaper would not be liable for publishing it.
D is incorrect. Although the parents would not recover against the newspaper, the recovery would not be barred based on their knowledge that a reporter was present at the school board meeting. Instead, the parents would not recover because the meeting itself was open to the public. All information disclosed was public, and the meeting itself newsworthy. If the information had not been disclosed at a public meeting, and the reporter reported on it, then the newspaper could have been liable for invasion of privacy. The reporter's presence and the parents' knowledge is relevant only because the underlying circumstances cut short the newspaper's liability.