Colorado high court reverses false-light verdict against newspaper

By The Associated Press

09.17.02

Printer-friendly page

DENVER — The Colorado Supreme Court yesterday reversed a jury verdict awarding $106,507 to a man who said he was falsely portrayed as a member of a crime family by the Rocky Mountain News.

The high court refused to recognize the civil claim made by Manuel "Eddie" Bueno that his privacy was violated by an August 1994 newspaper article. It also said the verdict, if it had been allowed to stand, would have had a chilling effect on the rights to free speech and free press guaranteed by the Constitution.

Bueno was mentioned in a story headlined "Denver's Biggest Crime Family." The story included a family tree with photographs of 18 Bueno siblings, 15 of whom have criminal records.

The story said Eddie Bueno and his brother Freddie had stayed out of trouble, but a Denver District Court jury found in May 1997 that the newspaper unfairly lumped Eddie Bueno in with his other siblings. The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the decision and the verdict in March 2000.

In yesterday's ruling, the state Supreme Court refused to recognize the tort, or civil injury, that the trial judge allowed to be presented to the jury. The judge had dismissed other torts claimed by Bueno.

The court said 30 states recognize the tort of false-light invasion of privacy. But it said the tort heavily overlaps defamation, another tort long recognized by Colorado courts.

Bueno's attorney was in trial and unavailable for comment.

Attorney Bruce Sanford, who represented the Rocky Mountain News, said the decision was a continuation of the state's strong tradition of protecting First Amendment rights.

"The danger here is that people in ordinary conversation or journalists in writing news reports can get hauled into court because of some vague claim or because someone is offended or feels slighted," Sanford said.

The ruling said the overlap and the lack of a strict, objective definition of false-light invasion of privacy could chill freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

It said the likelihood of chilling those freedoms was greater than the likelihood that a plaintiff would be left without the chance to seek damages under defamation law.

"Although we, as readers or viewers of the news, sometimes regret excesses or empathize with individuals whose unfortunate plights are exploited, we nonetheless rely heavily upon open and full disclosure," the ruling said. "We are comfortable that existing law adequately protects us from false publications, from cavalier reporting, or from malice."

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey and two other justices said the majority's decision unnecessarily stripped people of privacy protections. Mullarkey wrote that the court should restrict damages available under claims like Bueno's rather than throw out the ability to seek damages. She was joined by Alex Martinez and Nancy Rice.

"Bueno lost his privacy because a newspaper published a sensational story wrongly including him in the caste of criminals," Mullarkey wrote. "The court's refusal today to recognize false light not only narrows privacy protections in Colorado and contradicts a national majority rule, but also deprives Eddie Bueno of the rather modest compensation he won and sends him back into more litigation with a vastly better funded foe."

Update

Defamation claim against Denver newspaper can go to trial
Man says Rocky Mountain News unfairly lumped him in with crime family.  12.30.02

Related

Florida appeals panel says man can sue '60 Minutes'
Ruling could make it easier for plaintiffs to get trials in fair-reporting suits, media attorney says.  05.22.01

Privacy and the Press
This series on the delicate balance between the needs of an open society and those of individual privacy was written by Phillip Taylor in 1998.  05.01.01