## Facts

- CBS broadcast a September 1975 television documentary on hunting practices that included a brief (under one minute) segment showing Clare Randall Uhl participating in a goose hunt.
- The aired sequence showed geese walking on the ground, hunters firing, geese in flight, and then Uhl picking up a goose from the ground, accompanied by narration and dialogue.
- Uhl alleged the editing and sequencing falsely implied he shot a goose while it was on the ground, conduct he claimed hunters view as seriously unsportsmanlike and dishonorable.
- Evidence showed the geese were actually shot in flight and that CBS personnel had urged the hunters to shoot geese on the ground, which the hunters refused.
- Uhl sued for false-light invasion of privacy, alleging he was publicly portrayed in a false and highly offensive manner.

## Issues

1. Whether the claim, though pleaded as false-light invasion of privacy, was substantively defamation and therefore barred by Pennsylvania’s one-year statute of limitations for libel and slander.
2. Whether the broadcast placed Uhl before the public in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
3. Whether the First Amendment barred liability for a false-light claim arising from a documentary on a matter of public interest.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and defeat CBS’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

## Decision

- The court held the action was not time-barred because false-light invasion of privacy is distinct from defamation under Pennsylvania law and is governed by a longer limitations period.
- The court found sufficient evidence that the edited segment conveyed a misleading impression that Uhl shot a grounded goose.
- The court upheld the jury’s finding that the portrayal would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in Uhl’s position, given the social meaning of the conduct within the hunting community.
- The court concluded the jury could reasonably find CBS acted with knowledge or reckless disregard regarding the falsity of the impression created.
- The court denied CBS’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and allowed the nominal-damages verdict to stand.

## Legal Principles

- False-light invasion of privacy protects against publicity that places a person before the public in a false and highly offensive light, even where the portrayal is not technically defamatory.
- A false-light plaintiff must prove: (1) publicity placing the plaintiff in a false light; (2) the false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (3) knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light created.
- Editorial selection, sequencing, or juxtaposition of accurate footage can be actionable if it materially conveys a false message about an identifiable person.
- When the subject is of public interest, constitutional limits require at least knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard (an actual-malice-type standard) before liability may be imposed.
- Nominal damages may be awarded upon proof of a completed false-light violation even absent proof of measurable economic loss.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a jury verdict that CBS’s editing of a hunting documentary placed an identifiable hunter in a highly offensive false light and was not shielded by the First Amendment where the evidence supported a finding of knowing or reckless creation of a materially misleading portrayal; the claim was timely because it sounded in privacy rather than defamation.


Uhl v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 476 F. Supp. 1134 (W.D. Pa. 1979)