 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
MELVIN ALEXANDER PRESCOTT v. BAY ST. LOUIS NEWSPAPERS10/15/1986
driving. Power was interrupted in the parts of the Cedar Point area of the city for some two hours while Mississippi Power Company employees worked to restore
the lines. (Staff photo by Brent Macey)
Prescott's suit alleged that the pictures and new items, when taken in context, held him out to the public in the false light of a drunkard. Though Prescott's complaint is not crystal clear, counsel for Prescotrt at oral argument went to the crux of the suit when he indicated that the paper presented this false impression of Prescott by publicinng the Waveland arrest. The complaint alleged this action by the paper caused Prescott to lose his job and suffer actual damages in the amount of $750,000. Prescott also sought punitive damages in the amount of $750,000.
In deciding the paper's motion for summary judgment the trial court had before it Prescott's deposition, the deposition of this Cuevas, the paper's editor and publisher, an affidavit from Cuevas with accompanying exhibits and a battery of motions by Prescott. One of these motions sought to strike Cuevas' affidavit for non-compliance with M. R. C. P. 56 (e). Because we hold the summary judgment was proper without reference to Cuevas' affidavit, the trial court's failure to address this motion need not detain us.
Prescott stated that he had left work between 5 and 6 p.m. on the night of the accident. He recalled drinking a total of about ten beers at two different locations between leaving work and being involved in the accident. Prescott testified that the accident occurred about 10:30 p.m. He testified that he hit the utility pole because his Blazer automobile had broken shock absorbers which caused him to momentarily lose control when he struck a bump.
In his deposition, Prescott acknowledged he received a ticket for the October 19, 1982 accident charging him with driving under the influence , reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident. Later, Prescott was found not guilty of the aforementioned charges but he was found guilty of causing property damage. He was fined $100 and paid restitution of about $625 to the power company.
Prescott admitted he was charged October 5, 1982 with driving under the influence and with improper lane usage in Waveland. He pled no contest to the lane usage violation and pled guilty to the DUI charge and was fined $247.
Cuevas stated in his deposition that the paper printed an "update" item about the disposition of the charges against Prescott. A copy of that article appears in the record. The article notes Prescott was found not guilty of driving under the influence , leaving the scene of the accident and
reckless driving. It notes that Prescott was guilty of property damage and that he paid restitution. It makes no mention of the Waveland charges. Cuevas said those charges were omitted after he received a letter from counsel for Prescott and discussed it with his attorney. LAW
As noted, the crux of Prescott's complaint is invasion of privacy by being placed in a false light before the public. The newspaper initially argues that we have not specifically recognized that branch of invasion of privacy called "false light." The paper goes on to urge this Court either to refuse to recognize this theory of recovery, or, at least choose some other case to express its approval.
Both parties acknowledge this Court's opinion in Deaton v. Delta Democrat Publishing Co., 326 So.2d 471 (Miss. 1976), wherein we stated:
Mississippi has by implication judicially recognized the common law right to privacy. Martin v. Dorton, 210 Miss. 668, 50 So.2d 391 (1951). Although the law of privac
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|