## Facts

- Chassity Greech Ebbole operated “LA Body Art,” a tattoo and body-piercing business in Mobile, Alabama.
- Paul Averette, Jr. and Demented Needle, LLC operated a competing tattoo and body-piercing shop nearby; Victoria Louise Tanner was alleged to be associated with Demented Needle.
- Ebbole sued for slander, libel, and invasion of privacy based on a campaign allegedly intended to harm her reputation and business.
- Ebbole alleged defendants falsely told others she had hepatitis and other communicable diseases and had exposed customers to them.
- Ebbole alleged defendants displayed in their shop an altered representation of her work with the caption: “L.A. Body Art—Chassity’s work. Don’t let this happen to you or anyone you know!”
- Ebbole alleged defendants appropriated a plaster cast of her torso, adorned it with satanic symbols, and used it as a mannequin to display and sell shop T-shirts; evidence included Averette allegedly telling customers the cast was Ebbole’s body and that it was used to “set spells on her.”
- After Tanner was added as a defendant, Ebbole alleged Tanner posted false statements on MySpace questioning Ebbole’s professional skill and participated in a conspiracy with the other defendants to deprive Ebbole of business and cause mental anguish.
- The case was tried to a jury; defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (JML) at the close of plaintiff’s evidence and again at the close of all evidence; both motions were denied.
- The jury awarded zero compensatory damages against all defendants but awarded punitive damages: $200,000 (Demented Needle), $100,000 (Averette), and $10,000 (Tanner); the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- Two consolidated appeals followed: Tanner appealed, and Averette/Demented Needle appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported liability for slander and libel based on disease accusations and the in-shop sign disparaging Ebbole’s work.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported invasion-of-privacy liability based on commercial use and display of Ebbole’s torso cast and related statements to customers.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported Tanner’s liability for online libel and civil conspiracy.
4. Whether punitive damages could stand where the jury awarded zero compensatory damages, and whether the punitive amounts were excessive under Alabama law and due process.
5. Whether the trial court erred in denying defendants’ JML motions.

## Decision

- The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals issued a consolidated decision affirming liability in part and reversing in part as to damages.
- The court held the trial evidence was sufficient to submit Ebbole’s defamation and invasion-of-privacy theories to the jury; denial of JML on liability was not error.
- The court held punitive damages generally require a predicate of compensatory or nominal damages; for per se torts, nominal damages may be presumed and a punitive-only verdict may be treated as implicitly including nominal damages in appropriate circumstances.
- The court required modification of the punitive awards and remanded for proceedings consistent with Alabama punitive-damages doctrine and constitutional excessiveness limits.

## Legal Principles

- Accusing a person of having a serious communicable disease (such as hepatitis) may constitute slander per se, permitting recovery without proof of special damages and supporting at least nominal damages upon liability.
- A publication that identifies the plaintiff and disparages the plaintiff’s professional competence can be actionable libel affecting the plaintiff’s trade.
- Invasion of privacy in Alabama includes appropriation of identity for commercial use and false light; using a physical likeness (such as a torso cast) as a commercial display and affirmatively identifying it as the plaintiff can support both theories if the portrayal would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
- Punitive damages must be predicated on at least nominal or compensatory damages; even when nominal damages are presumed or implied, punitive awards remain subject to state-law limits and due-process excessiveness review (including reprehensibility and proportionality considerations).
- On review of a JML denial, the appellate court asks whether substantial evidence supports each essential element, viewing evidence and inferences in the nonmovant’s favor.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the submission of Ebbole’s defamation and invasion-of-privacy claims (including Tanner’s alleged online libel and conspiracy) to the jury, but concluded that the punitive-only verdict required correction under Alabama’s nominal-damages predicate and excessiveness constraints; it therefore affirmed liability in part, reversed or modified the punitive awards, and remanded for further proceedings.


Tanner v. Ebbole, 88 So. 3d 856 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011)