Denver Publishing Co. v. Bueno9/16/2002
rivacy comprises four distinct kinds of invasion of four different interests of the plaintiff, which are tied together by the common name, but otherwise have almost nothing in common except that each represents an interference with the right of the plaintiff, . . . "to be let alone." William L. Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal. L. Rev. 383, 389 (1960) (citation omitted). By 1977, the drafters of the Restatement adopted Prosser's four categories:
1) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another ("intrusion");
2) publicity that unreasonably places another in a false light before the public ("false light");
3) unreasonable publicity given to another's private life ("disclosure"); and
4) appropriation of another's name or likeness ("appropriation"). Restatement (Second) of Torts ยง 652 A-E (1977); Prosser, supra, at 389.
Whether to adopt these as viable tort claims is a question of state law. See Angelotta v. Am. Broad. Corp., 820 F.2d 806, 809 (6th Cir. 1987).
A. Colorado law
While this court recognized the existence of invasion of privacy as a tort in 1970, Rugg v. McCarty, 173 Colo. 170, 476 P.2d 753 (1970), we only recently embraced categories three and four. Joe Dickerson & Assocs. v. Dittmar, 34 P.3d 995, 1001 (Colo. 2001) (appropriation); Ozer v. Borquez, 940 P.2d 371, 377 (Colo. 1997) (disclosure). By denying certiorari in Doe v. High-Tech Institute, Inc., 972 P.2d 1060 (Colo. App. 1998), we allowed the first category, intrusion, to stand. Thus, three of Prosser's four invasion of privacy categories are viable tort claims in Colorado. Id. at 1067. (" ecognition of a claim under one aspect of the privacy tort does not entail recognition of all four.").
Neither this court, nor our state legislature, has expressly adopted the second category of the tort: false light. Indeed, previous to the case at bar, only one Colorado Court of Appeals case treated the elements of false light, McCammon & Associates v. McGraw- Hill Broadcasting Co., 716 P.2d 490, 492 (Colo. App. 1986). The claim failed on its merits.
Five other cases in our jurisdiction, including the court of appeals case in Dittmar, note the tort's existence but do not expressly adopt or apply it. Borquez, 940 P.2d at 377; People v. Home Ins. Co., 591 P.2d 1036, 1038 n.2 (Colo. 1979); Dittmar v. Joe Dickerson & Assocs., 9 P.3d 1145, 1146 (Colo. App. 1999); Doe v. High- Tech Inst., Inc., 972 P.2d at 1064-65, rev'd, 34 P.3d 995 (Colo. 2001); Fire Ins. Exch. v. Bentley, 953 P.2d 1297, 1301 (Colo. App. 1998).
At the same time, four District Court cases in the Tenth Circuit employing Colorado law have applied the elements of false light, apparently assuming Colorado had adopted the tort. Brown v. O'Bannon, 84 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1180-81 (D. Colo. 2000) (finding plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient "publicity" for false light claim) (ci
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Show All Case Laws Colorado PEO
|