## Facts

- Geraldine J. Gravina, a Rhode Island resident, claimed she set a duckpin bowling “world record” score on October 9, 1969.
- Brunswick Corporation manufactured bowling equipment and distributed a flyer to bowling-alley proprietors nationwide.
- The flyer used Gravina’s photograph and suggested she was a satisfied user of Brunswick bowling pins.
- Gravina alleged the use of her name and likeness was unauthorized and caused embarrassment and humiliation.
- She sued seeking compensatory and punitive damages for invasion of privacy.

## Issues

1. In a diversity action, may a federal court recognize a Rhode Island common-law invasion-of-privacy claim despite controlling Rhode Island Supreme Court precedent rejecting such a cause of action?
2. Does Rhode Island, Delaware, or Illinois substantive law govern the asserted invasion-of-privacy claim arising from nationally distributed advertising involving a Rhode Island plaintiff and an out-of-state corporate defendant?

## Decision

- The court granted Brunswick’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- Applying Erie principles, the court held it was bound by Rhode Island Supreme Court precedent holding Rhode Island does not recognize a common-law cause of action for invasion of privacy.
- The court determined Rhode Island substantive law governed because the plaintiff resided in Rhode Island and the alleged dignitary injury was centered there.
- Because Rhode Island law provided no invasion-of-privacy claim, the complaint was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- In diversity cases, federal courts must apply state substantive law as declared by the state’s highest court and may not create or expand state tort causes of action.
- Absent authoritative state-law change, a federal court must follow controlling state precedent even if it views the rule as outdated or erroneous.
- For privacy-based dignitary injuries tied to reputation and personal relations, the plaintiff’s residence and place where the injury is felt may be treated as the primary locus for applying substantive law under forum choice-of-law principles.
- A complaint fails to state a claim when the governing state law does not recognize the asserted cause of action.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the action because Rhode Island law governed and, under controlling Rhode Island precedent, did not recognize a common-law invasion-of-privacy claim; under Erie, the federal court could not adopt a contrary rule or apply another state’s privacy tort based solely on the defendant’s out-of-state corporate contacts.


Gravina v. Brunswick Corp., 338 F. Supp. 1 (D.R.I. 1972)