This is the shoplifter-in-action photo from Mike Rowe's site, with ID covered for legal safety |
But, just for the fun of it, here is Political Sphere’s open
letter to Mike Rowe, with tort law citations included:
_____________________
June 24, 2014
Dear Mr. Rowe,
I read about your experience with a lawyer at the liquor store
the other day. I am only a law student and cannot give legal advice yet. I
personally think that your lawyer gave you good advice to prevent a lawsuit,
because lawyers such as the one you met at the liquor store exist. But I
vehemently disagree with that lawyer’s assessment that the liquor store owner
would likely lose; in fact I think that lawyer would be liable for malpractice
if he pursued the case. Again, nothing I say should be taken as legal
advice, but merely as my personal opinion (unfortunately, I must repeat
and emphasize this to prevent my own liability, because, yes, this is what this
country has come to).
As I see it, there are likely only two causes of action the
lawyer could consider pursuing here, both of which are likely to fail. The first
is a defamation claim, alleging that the store owner has lessened society’s
estimation of the person photographed. However, truth is an ultimate defense to
any defamation claim. Therefore, the lawyer would almost definitely fail taking
this course of action.
The second option would be a claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress. This too is likely to fail, because the
lawyer would have to convince a pool of jurors, made up of regular people (i.e.
non-lawyers) such as yourself, that the actions the store owner took were
outrageous. I cannot personally imagine that a person other than a scumbag
lawyer like the one you talked to would see the store owner’s posting of the
picture as outrageous.
Besides likely failure using those two approaches, there’s
an additional reason not to take on such a suit. The lawyer would be committing
malpractice by encouraging the person pictured to file suit, because that
action would identify the person to the store owner and the state. This
identification would allow the store owner and the state to pursue charges on
the criminal act the person is alleged to have committed.
We’ll take the two claim options and then the reasons for
malpractice in order.
First, there are variations of the defamation cause of
action in each state, but the lawyer is unlikely to succeed on a claim of
defamation, because the statement is true. Generally, to incur liability for
defamation, either libel or slander, there must be (1) a false statement, (2)
the false statement must be defamatory, (3) the statement must be made to a
third party, (4) the person who made the statement must have committed at least
negligence in determining the falsity of the statement, and (5) the statement
must have caused harm. Restatement (2nd) of Torts § 558. Here, based on what
was explained, element one is not met.
A person is not liable for a true statement. Restatement
(2nd) of Torts § 581A. When a statement is defamatory per se (defamation per se
is a defamatory statement that is naturally going to decrease the person in the
eyes of the community, such as accusing the person of a crime), then a
presumption exists that the statement is false. E.G. Thomas v. Bowen, 29 Ore. 258, 266-67 (1896). In Thomas, a newspaper printed that the
plaintiff was guilty of larceny before the plaintiff had been convicted of the
crime. Id. at 266. The Court observed
that because the law presumes that a person is innocent of a crime until the
person is proven guilty, then charging a person with an indictable offense is
presumed evidence that the statement is false. Id. Thus, the defendant has the burden to prove that the statement
is true. Id.
In the case you mention, I would presume that the people
pictured have not been charged. Therefore, the presumption is that the person
is innocent. However, the defendant may rebut the presumption and show its
truth. This fact alone makes it unlikely for the plaintiff to win, because the
store owner explained that he maintained video evidence of the people
shoplifting. Therefore, the store owner should be able to rebut the
presumption.
Second, a suit for intentional infliction of emotional
distress is likely to fail, because the average person will not see the store
owner’s actions as outrageous, and may not even consider the person severely
emotionally distressed. To succeed in a suit for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, the lawyer must be able to show that the store owner (1) by
extreme or outrageous behavior, (2) intentionally or recklessly, (3) caused, (4)
severe emotional distress. Restatement (2nd) of Torts § 46. Following your
discussion as it was relayed in your letter, this is the more likely path the
lawyer was considering. The lawyer claimed that he would be able to show that
the person pictured was emotionally distressed and that the store owner was the
cause of that distress. He continued to compare the punishment through the
legal system with the public shaming used by the store owner.
However, the lawyer is unlikely to win, primarily because,
despite his claim, a jury would not consider the public shaming utilized by the
store owner as extreme or outrageous. The comment provided by the restatement
explains:
The cases thus far decided have found liability only where
the defendant's conduct has been extreme and outrageous. It has not been enough
that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal,
or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that his conduct
has been characterized by "malice," or a degree of aggravation which
would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort. Liability has
been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so
extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be
regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average
member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead
him to exclaim, "Outrageous!"
Restatement
(2d) of Torts, § 46. The lawyer would fail to meet the burden explained,
because posting pictures of people the store owner accuses of shoplifting does
not exceed the bounds of all decency. Consider that, though it is often for
somewhat higher crimes, even the police will post pictures of accused parties.
Indeed, the police will plaster video of accused robbers all over the evening
news. Here, regardless of whether the store owner has malice, it is hard to see
a jury deciding merely posting the pictures in the store is extreme conduct.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the lawyer could succeed on a claim of
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
But even
if the lawyer were able to convince the jury that the store owner’s conduct was
outrageous, the lawyer would still likely lose, because the lawyer would be
unable to show that any emotional distress suffered by the person pictured was
severe. As the comment to section 46 of the restatement explains, “The rule
stated in this Section applies only where the emotional distress has in fact
resulted, and where it is severe.” Restatement (2d) of Torts, § 46. The
restatement continues, “The law intervenes only where the distress inflicted is
so severe that no reasonable man could be expected to endure it.” Id. Further, “The distress must be
reasonable and justified under the circumstances, and
there is no liability where the plaintiff has suffered exaggerated and
unreasonable emotional distress.” Id.
Here again, the lawyer would have to convince the jury, comprised of
normal people unlike himself, that the person pictured suffered severe mental
anguish, beyond what any reasonable man could be expected to endure, which
anguish is reasonable and justified. I know this is conclusory, but I think the
lawyer would be hard pressed to show that the distress was severe, much less
that if the distress is severe that the distress is reasonable and justified
when all that the store owner did was accuse the person of shoplifting and
posted the picture in the store.
In summation, the lawyer would likely lose a claim of intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Any emotional distress caused is unlikely to
reasonably and justifiably be severe, and I doubt that a jury of thinking
Americans would consider posting the picture of an accused shoplifter to be
“utterly intolerable in a civilized society.” Thus, the lawyer has no claim
against the store owner.
Additionally, if the lawyer were to bring a suit against the
store owner, the lawyer would likely be liable for malpractice. By bringing the
suit, the accused shoplifter has identified himself/herself as the person
pictured. Thus, the store owner would be able to counter sue for restitution
from the shoplifter, and the state would be able to charge the shoplifter for
the criminal act. In my experience, the only reason that the state would not
already have charged the individual for shoplifting and ordered restitution is
because the state does not yet know who the person in the video is. By filing
suit, this barrier to charging the individual with the crime disappears.
In conclusion, the lawyer you talked to would likely not
only have lost the claim for either defamation or intentional infliction of
emotional distress, but subjected the client to jail time, restitution, and a
criminal charge on the client’s record. It is irresponsible to open a client up
to such liability. As such, the lawyer would likely be liable for malpractice
for being stupid enough to represent the client in suing for defamation.
There are, unfortunately, bad lawyers who would file this
type of litigation, thinking that the suit would likely succeed. But the
majority of lawyers would recognize the slim chance of recovery in this case
and refuse to act as this lawyer claims he would. I hope this gives you a
little more faith in the legal system.
Sincerely,
Political Sphere
No comments:
Post a Comment