People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a/k/a PETA v. Bobby
Berosini case brief
111 Nev. 615
111 Nev. 615
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellants, animal
rights organizations and individuals, challenged a judgment entered
in favor of respondent animal trainer by the Eighth Judicial District
Court, Clark County (Nevada), in an action seeking damages for libel
and invasion of privacy.
FACTS
FACTS
Respondent animal trainer was
secretly filmed while he disciplined orangutans backstage.
Appellants, animal rights organizations and individuals, released the
video and made statements concerning its contents. Respondent sued
appellants for libel and invasion of privacy and a jury returned a
verdict for respondent.
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
- The court reversed the judgment.
- The court held that the distribution of the video was not false or defamatory because it was an accurate portrayal of respondent's discipline method and respondent believed he was doing nothing wrong.
- A statement that respondent "regularly abused" the animals was an evaluative opinion and not libelous.
- A statement that respondent beat the animals with steel rods was not defamatory because whether the rods in question were steel or wood was immaterial.
- The court held that the secret filming was not an intrusion on respondent's expected seclusion because his only expectation was freedom from interference with his animals and the use of the camera was not highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- Respondent, as a public figure, could not recover for appropriation and he did not plead a right of publicity tort.
No comments:
Post a Comment