Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co.

419 U.S. 245 (1974).

Facts

Cantrell's (P) husband died in a bridge collapse. Forest City Publishing (D1) decided to do a follow-up story on the disaster, and Eszterhas (D2), a reporter, decided to interview P to determine the effect that the death had on the family. D2 went to P's home when P was not home, interviewed, and took pictures of P's 4 minor children. The story stressed the family’s abject poverty. The children's old, ill-fitting clothes and the deteriorating condition of their home were detailed in both the text and accompanying photographs. Although P was not present at any time during the reporter's visit to her home, D2 wrote, 'Margaret Cantrell will talk neither about what happened nor about how they are doing. She wears the same mask of non-expression she wore at the funeral. She is a proud woman. Her world has changed. She says that after it happened, the people in town offered to help them out with money and they refused to take it.' P sued for invasion of privacy under false light. D conceded the story contained a number of inaccuracies and false statements particularly about D2’s statements concerning P. The court dismissed the punitive damage issue; there was no showing of actual malice. The court then instructed the jury that liability could be found for a reckless disregard of the truth. The jury found for P. That was reversed by the appellate court; the dismissal of the punitive damages issue meant that no actual malice was found and actual malice was necessary for recovery under this cause of action. The record of the District Court was somewhat unclear.