Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Brothers, Miller & Rhoades, Inc.

492 A.2d 580 (1985)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P contacted Dr. Magassy (D) to discuss the possibility of having him perform plastic surgery. Before and after the surgical procedure, Dr. Magassy (D) took photographs of P's face. Several months later, Dr. Magassy (D) was invited by the director of public relations for Garfinckel's (D) to participate in a store promotion during March 1979. He agreed to participate without compensation in a program entitled, 'Creams versus Plastic Surgery,' a topic chosen by Garfinckel's (D) partly as a result of recent publicity about the plastic surgery operations of the wives of Presidents Ford and Carter. Garfinckel's (D) arranged to have Dr. Magassy (D) and other participants appear on the 'Panorama' television program on WTTG, Channel 5, in Washington, D.C. Dr. Magassy (D) assured the store director of Garfinckel’s (D) that he had obtained consent to use the pictures. Dr. Magassy (D) presented slide photographs of several of his patients, including two 'before' and two 'after' of P. A former coworker, Beatrice Brooks, recognized P and Beatrice immediately called a friend at work to share this information. The coworker told another employee, Elliott Woo, a neighbor of P, but he already knew. Three days later Dr. Magassy (D) made a similar presentation at Garfinckel's (D) department store; seventy-nine people were in the audience. No evidence was presented that anyone there recognized P. P was 'devastated,' 'absolutely shocked' and 'felt terrible' that everyone at her former office knew about her face-lift. P 'went into a terrible depression,' and did not want to go out in public anymore. She claimed she virtually went into hiding and refused to accompany her husband to many places because she knew everyone talked about her cosmetic surgery. P categorically denied that she had given permission to use her photographs. P sued alleging that her right to privacy was violated because unreasonable publicity was given to her private life, her photographs were used for commercial gain by Ds, and she was portrayed in a false light. The jury returned a verdict for $350,000 but the trial judge granted a directed verdict and a judgment n.o.v. so that P take nothing. P appealed. The trial court held that the right of privacy is not absolute and that, in balancing the individual's right to be let alone and the public's right to know, there are occasions on which the public right must prevail.