## Facts

- Sue S. Crump, a coal miner, consented in 1977 to a newspaper photograph of her used in an article about women coal miners generally.
- On September 23, 1979, the newspaper published an article about problems faced by women miners, describing extreme harassment incidents in other states.
- The 1979 article did not name Crump, but it reused her 1977 photograph without obtaining new consent, with a caption suggesting women were entering mines routinely.
- Crump alleged she had not experienced the described harassment but was questioned by acquaintances after publication about whether she had been subjected to such abuse.
- Crump sued for libel (defamation) and false-light invasion of privacy based on the photo’s association with the harassment narrative.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to the newspaper on the theory that the publication was conditionally privileged due to newsworthiness and relevance.

## Issues

1. Whether republication of Crump’s photograph alongside an article describing severe harassment of women miners could be found defamatory by implication, satisfying the “reference to the plaintiff” requirement despite no express naming.
2. Whether the publication could be found to place Crump in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and whether that claim was barred as a matter of law by privilege, newsworthiness, or consent.
3. Whether any qualified privilege applied and, if so, whether a factfinder could conclude the privilege was exceeded by the manner and context of the photograph’s use.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held a jury could find defamation by implication through the combined effect of the harassment article and Crump’s identifiable photograph.
- The court held a jury could find the publication placed Crump in a false light by visually associating her with humiliating and dangerous harassment she had not experienced.
- The court held that prior consent to the 1977 use did not conclusively establish consent to the later use in a materially different context.
- The court held that even if a qualified privilege could attach due to public interest, factual questions existed on whether the privilege was exceeded, making summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- A private-plaintiff defamation claim requires: (1) defamatory statements; (2) nonprivileged communication to a third party; (3) falsity; (4) reference to the plaintiff; (5) at least negligence by the publisher; and (6) resulting injury.
- For a private individual, absent privilege, the fault standard is negligence measured by reasonable prudence under the circumstances.
- Libel may occur through publication of pictures or photographs, not only written words.
- Defamation may be conveyed by inference or implication; whether a publication refers to a particular plaintiff is typically a jury question.
- Invasion of privacy includes false light; privacy protection is limited by defamation privileges, matters of legitimate public interest, and consent.
- The existence of a qualifiedly privileged occasion may be a legal question when facts are undisputed, but whether the privilege was exceeded can present a factual question.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Crump’s defamation and false-light claims for trial because a factfinder could reasonably interpret the republication of her photograph with an article describing extreme harassment as implying she was a victim of such conduct, and disputed questions remained on consent, privilege, and whether any privilege was exceeded.


Crump v. Beckley Newspapers, Inc., 320 S.E.2d 70 (W. Va. 1984)