Genesis Publications, Inc. v. Goss, 82-659
| Decision Date | 02 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-659,82-659 |
| Citation | 437 So.2d 169 |
| Parties | 9 Media L. Rep. 2149 GENESIS PUBLICATIONS, INC. and Cycle Guide Publications, Inc., Appellants, v. Anne C. GOSS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Mallory H. Horton, Miami, for appellants.
Robert J. Galamaga, South Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., BARKDULL, J., and KAPNER, LEWIS, Associate Judge.
This lawsuit stems from the publication by defendant, Genesis Publications, Inc., of a nude photograph of plaintiff Anne C. Goss. This publication was without plaintiff's permission.
The photograph was one of many taken by a photographer pursuant to plaintiff's desire to develop a portfolio to aid in her efforts at beginning a modeling career. Without plaintiff's consent, the photographs were given to defendant by an ad agency for use in a commercial advertisement published in defendant's magazine, Genesis. The plaintiff brought an action for invasion of privacy which resulted in a jury verdict of $100,000 compensatory damages and $400,000 punitive damages. Defendant appealed, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to support either award.
Considering the trial testimony, as well as the nature of Genesis magazine and of the advertisements containing plaintiff's photograph, there is sufficient evidence to justify a verdict of $100,000 compensatory damages. We therefore affirm that award; but, we find no evidence to justify the award of punitive damages.
Defendant conceded that it did not have plaintiff's permission to publish the photograph even though such permission is specifically required by the statutes of New York, 1 where defendant's magazine was published, and the statutes of Florida, 2 where the instant complaint was filed. Although we note that the complaint alleges common law invasion of privacy and not a violation of statute, if there was evidence tending to show intentional, wanton and malicious disregard for laws designed to protect people's rights, the issue of punitive damages would properly be one for the jury. See Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 327, 171 So. 214, 221 (1936). However, plaintiff must show more than an intent to commit a tort or violate a statute to justify punitive damages. As stated in Wrains v. Rose, 175 So.2d 75, 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965), "[M]ere proof of an intentional tort does not ipso facto entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages ...." 17 Fla.Jur.2d Damages § 120 (1980) citing 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 250, is more specific:
Malice ... is not simply the doing of an unlawful or injurious act; it implies that the act complained of was conceived in the spirit of mischief or criminal indifference to civil obligations.
The corporate officer who approved the advertisement in question testified that notwithstanding the requirements of law, his corporation never sought written permission for publication of photographs used for commercial purposes when photographs were obtained from advertising agencies, but that the corporation did seek written permission for publication of editorial photographs. The rationale was that, where photographs were to be used for commercial purposes, it was assumed the advertising agencies would obtain the necessary permission in accordance with the industry practice. If in fact the advertising agency had properly obtained plaintiff's permission, she would have had no cause of action whatsoever for invasion of privacy.
Nonetheless, the trial court allowed the jury to consider the issue of punitive damages on the sole basis of the corporate officer's testimony that despite the requirement that permission be obtained, his company never did so, relying instead on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
G.M. Brod & Co., Inc. v. U.S. Home Corp.
...the act complained of was conceived in the spirit of mischief or criminal indifference to civil obligations." Genesis Publications, Inc. v. Goss, 437 So.2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). "The terms 'punitive' and 'vindictive' damages are used interchangeably." Ellis v. Golconda Corp., 352 So.2d 12......
-
Burger King Corp. v. Austin
...the act complained of was conceived in the spirit of mischief or criminal indifference to civil obligations." Genesis Publications, Inc. v. Goss, 437 So.2d 169 (Fla.3d DCA 1983). "The terms `punitive' and `vindictive' are used interchangeably." Ellis v. Golconda Corp., 352 So.2d 1221, 1225 ......
-
Allison v. Vintage Sports Plaques
...address instances either of unauthorized use of likenesses that never have been licensed for use, see, e.g., Genesis Publications, Inc. v. Goss, 437 So.2d 169 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983), cert. denied, 449 So.2d 264 (Fla.1984) (upholding jury verdict for plaintiff who, although consenting to be ......
-
Anderson v. City of Groveland
...to show more than an intent to commit a tort or violate a statute, i.e., it requires a showing of malice. See Genesis Publ'ns, Inc. v. Goss, 437 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). If the issue of damages need be reached, whether Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages will be determined ......
-
Business & commercial cases
...540.08(3)(c) applies to the facts of this case cannot be determined on a motion to dismiss). 3. Genesis Publications, Inc. v. Goss, 437 So.2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied , 449 So.2d 264 (Fla. 1984). 4. Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (“Florida Statute 540.08 applie......
-
Unauthorized appropriation of an individual's name or likeness - Florida's appellate courts and s. 540.08.
...obtain necessary consents may be liable for invasion of privacy if the consent is not procured. See Genesis Publications, Inc. v. Goss, 437 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In Goss, the plaintiff brought a claim for common law invasion of privacy for damages arising from the publication ......