## Facts

- A bank, acting as conservator for 96-year-old Nellie Mitchell, sued a tabloid publisher that operated *The Sun*.
- Mitchell was a well-known Mountain Home, Arkansas resident who had long operated a local newsstand and was easily recognizable in the community.
- *The Sun* published an issue featuring a real photograph of Mitchell (previously used in a truthful story) above a sensational headline about the “world’s oldest newspaper carrier” quitting because she was pregnant.
- The accompanying article purported to describe a different person (“Audrey Wiles” in Australia) but used Mitchell’s image and presented the story in a news-like format alongside some non-fiction items, without a clear disclaimer that it was fabricated.
- Evidence indicated *The Sun* commonly created stories by pairing a headline and photo with invented content, without meaningful fact-checking and without consistently distinguishing truth from fiction.
- Mitchell testified the publication humiliated and upset her; other evidence suggested some community members believed the article referred to her.
- After a jury trial, the jury found for the defendant on defamation but found for the plaintiff on false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), awarding $650,000 compensatory damages and $850,000 punitive damages.
- The publisher moved post-trial for judgment as a matter of law, or remittitur, or a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support liability for false light invasion of privacy and IIED.
2. Whether a defense verdict on defamation was legally inconsistent with plaintiff verdicts on false light and IIED.
3. Whether the compensatory and punitive damages were so excessive as to require remittitur or a new trial.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law.
- The court denied remittitur and denied a new trial.
- The court upheld the jury’s findings of liability for false light invasion of privacy and IIED.
- The court left intact the full compensatory and punitive damages awards.

## Legal Principles

- False light invasion of privacy may be proven when a publication places a real person before the public in a false, highly offensive manner, and the publisher acts with at least reckless disregard as to falsity.
- A publication presented in a news-like format, using a real person’s photograph, can be treated by reasonable readers as conveying actual facts even if the publisher characterizes the piece as “fiction.”
- Defamation and false light protect different interests; a plaintiff may prevail on false light (and related emotional-distress harms) even if the plaintiff fails to prove defamation.
- Under Arkansas IIED standards, conduct may be actionable when it is extreme and outrageous and intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress; using an identifiable, vulnerable person’s image in a humiliating fabricated story can meet that standard.
- A federal court will not disturb a jury’s damages award absent a showing that the verdict “shocks the conscience” or reflects passion or prejudice; emotional-distress damages warrant substantial deference, and punitive damages may be sustained to punish and deter reckless institutional practices.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a substantial jury award for false light and IIED arising from a tabloid’s use of a real elderly woman’s photograph to illustrate a fabricated, sexually humiliating story presented as news, holding the evidence sufficient, the verdicts not inconsistent with the defense win on defamation, and the damages not excessive under the governing post-trial standards.


Peoples Bank & Tr. Co. of Mountain Home v. Globe Int’l, Inc., 786 F. Supp. 791 (W.D. Ark. 1992)