## Facts

- Margaret Cantrell’s husband died in the 1967 collapse of the Silver Bridge between Ohio and West Virginia.
- A Cleveland newspaper published a follow-up “human interest” story about victims’ families written by its reporter.
- The reporter visited the Cantrell home, spoke with the children, and arranged photographs, but did not meet or interview Mrs. Cantrell.
- The published story portrayed Mrs. Cantrell as if the reporter had observed and interviewed her, including invented descriptions of her appearance, demeanor, and remarks.
- The story contained multiple inaccuracies and depicted the family’s circumstances in a manner alleged to place them in a false light.
- Mrs. Cantrell and her son sued the publisher and reporter for false-light invasion of privacy, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether an appellate court may treat a trial court’s denial of punitive damages for lack of “malice” as an implicit finding that there was no evidence of constitutional “actual malice” (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth), thereby requiring judgment for media defendants on a false-light claim.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a jury to find that the reporter published false statements with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth, and to hold the publisher liable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
- The trial judge’s refusal to submit punitive damages, based on “malice” under state punitive-damages doctrine, did not decide the separate First Amendment fault requirement of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.
- The jury had a legally sufficient basis to find knowing or reckless falsehood because the reporter wrote as if he had personally observed and interviewed Mrs. Cantrell despite knowing she was not present and had not been interviewed.
- The publisher could be held liable under respondeat superior because the reporter acted within the scope of employment when gathering and publishing the story.

## Legal Principles

- In false-light invasion of privacy actions against media defendants involving matters of public interest, recovery is constitutionally permitted only upon proof that the defendant published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
- Common-law “malice” used to justify punitive damages (often linked to ill will or aggravated misconduct) is distinct from constitutional “actual malice” focusing on the publisher’s awareness of falsity or serious doubts about truth.
- A trial court’s ruling that evidence is insufficient for punitive-damages malice does not, without more, negate evidence supporting constitutional actual malice for liability.
- Ordinary respondeat superior rules apply to media employers; constitutional press protections do not bar vicarious liability for an employee’s tortious publication within the scope of employment.

## Conclusion

The Court reinstated the jury’s compensatory verdict, holding that fabricated, material portrayals in a news feature could support false-light liability when published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard, and that denying punitive damages for lack of common-law malice did not require overturning the liability finding.


Cantrell v. Forest City Publ’g Co., 419 U.S. 245 (1974)