 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
PETA v. Bobby Berosini5/22/1995
ON REHEARING
On April 14, 1995, this court granted rehearing in the above matter on the basis that an appearance of impropriety might exist with regard to one of the members of the panel which issued our prior opinion, dated January 27, 1994. In granting rehearing the court entered its order that, on rehearing, this matter would be submitted on the record, the pleadings, and the tape recording of the oral argument conducted by the court on April 21, 1992. It was further ordered that District Judge Jack Lehman would be disqualified and that Justice Miriam Shearing would participate on rehearing in the stead of Judge Lehman. Justice Shearing has reviewed the record, the briefs, and the tape recording of the oral argument. Whereupon, the court now issues the following opinion on rehearing.
OPINION
By the Court, Springer, J.: In this litigation respondent Berosini claims that two animal rights organizations, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), and three individuals defamed him and invaded his privacy. Judgment was entered by the trial court on jury verdicts on the libel and invasion of privacy claims in the aggregate amount of $4.2 million. This appeal followed. We conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict and, accordingly, reverse the judgment. The two independent claims, libel and invasion of privacy, each involving clearly distinct principles of law, will be discussed in separate sections of this opinion.
[111 Nev. 615, Page 618]
PART ONE: THE LIBEL ACTIONS
The word libel comes from the Latin libellus, "little book." The legal term derives from the practice in ancient Rome of publishing little books or booklets which were used by one Roman in defaming another. The "little book" in this case takes the form of a videotape which shows world-renowned animal trainer, Bobby Berosini, back-stage before the beginning of his show, shaking and punching his trained orangutans and hitting them with some kind of rod. We conclude that the libellus is not libelous. In a critical pretrial discovery order, the trial court limited Berosini's libel action to two categories, thus:
1. " he [video] tape and its distribution and showing to the public." 2. " he alleged statements of Defendants quoted in the Amended Complaint," namely, that all or some of the "Defendants had defamed Berosini by stating that Plaintiff Berosini regularly abuses his orangutans and has beaten them with steel rods, all of which is false." 1 The mentioned pretrial order frames the
[111 Nev. 615, Page 619]
libel issues in this appeal:
1. Were the "defendants," or any of them, liable to Berosini by reason of distributing and showing the mentioned videotape? 2. Were the "defendants," or any of them, liable to Berosini by reason of their having said either, (a) that Berosini "regularly abuses his orangutans" or (b) that Berosini "has beaten them with steel rods?"
To create liability for defamation there must be:
(a) a false and defamatory statement concerning another; (b) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and (d) either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm, or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.
Restatement (Second) of Torts S 558 (1965). Based on the absence of (a), a false and defamatory statement, we conclude that the two stated questions must be answered in the negative and that the judgment of the trial court must therefore be reversed.
FIRST LIBEL C
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Nevada Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|