## Facts

- Joseph L. Morrison, a young academic, was invited to appear as a contestant on NBC’s television quiz show “Twenty-One” in 1958.
- Morrison alleged the defendants (NBC and others involved in producing/sponsoring the show) represented the program was an honest contest conducted in good faith and without coaching or predetermined results.
- Relying on those representations, Morrison agreed to participate.
- Morrison alleged the show was actually rigged: certain contestants (not Morrison) were given questions and answers in advance so producers could control outcomes to increase suspense.
- The rigging became public in 1959 after investigations by public bodies, including grand juries and a congressional subcommittee.
- Morrison alleged the public associated all contestants with the fraud and inferred he had been complicit, causing scorn and serious, permanent harm to his professional standing and reputation, including loss of fellowships and opportunities.
- Morrison sued in 1961 (under the Civil Practice Act), asserting multiple causes of action; the dispute on appeal concerned the first cause of action seeking recovery for reputational and related harms on a nondefamation theory.

## Issues

1. Whether the first cause of action sufficiently alleged a cognizable tort where defendants allegedly induced Morrison to participate in a fraudulent program and the later exposure predictably caused reputational and professional harm, even though the allegations did not fit a single traditional tort category such as defamation.
2. Whether the claim was time-barred: whether the one-year limitations period applicable to defamation-type actions governed, or a longer period applied because the injury to reputation was not based on published defamatory statements.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division modified the orders to deny the motions to dismiss the first cause of action and otherwise affirmed.
- The court held the first cause of action stated a claim based on a combination of recognized tort elements, notwithstanding its novelty and lack of perfect fit within a single orthodox category.
- The court held the action was not governed by the one-year defamation limitations period because the claim did not rest on publication of defamatory statements about Morrison.
- The court applied a six-year limitations period for deliberately caused injury to reputation and professional standing not otherwise specifically limited and held the 1961 filing timely.
- One justice dissented, concluding the first cause of action was legally insufficient and would have dismissed without reaching limitations.

## Legal Principles

- A complaint may state a tort claim where defendants’ intentional misconduct, taken as a whole, foreseeably causes legally cognizable harm, even if the facts do not conform neatly to a single traditional tort label.
- Injury to reputation can be actionable without defamation where the harm arises from defendants’ non-defamatory conduct that creates a public inference damaging to the plaintiff.
- The one-year statute of limitations for defamation applies to claims based on published defamatory statements “of and concerning” the plaintiff; it does not control a claim for intentional, nondefamatory injury to reputation.
- A longer limitations period (six years) applies to deliberate injury to reputation and professional standing not otherwise specifically limited under the governing limitations provisions.

## Conclusion

The court allowed an allegedly innocent quiz-show contestant to proceed on a nondefamation theory for reputational and professional harm caused by defendants’ intentional misrepresentations and the foreseeable public inference of complicity when the fraud was exposed, and it held the claim timely under a six-year limitations period rather than the one-year defamation period.


Morrison v. National Broad. Co., 24 A.D.2d 284 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1965)