DEAN v GUARD PUBLISHING, 14 MLR 2100 (OrCtAp 1987).
699 P.2d 1158 (1985)
A Register Guard photographer photographed a visitor at the opening of an alcohol treatment facility. In the photo it appeared as if the plaintiff, who was visiting the facility and was not a patient, was in the aversion therapy treatment room. The plaintiff was known to have an alcohol problem, but was not in treatment or recovery. He claimed false light, arguing that the photo left the impression that he was in treatment for alcoholism.
1. The court adopted the Restatement False light analysis.
2. The trial court had issues a directed verdict for the newspaper saying that as matter of law the photo could not be highly offensive to a reasonable person. . The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case saying the the false impression question and the public perception of alcoholism (i.e., the highly offensive standard) were questions for the jury to determine.
3. The court noted but did not address the uncertain state of the public/private status of the plaintiff question in false light cases.
THE CASE WAS SETTLED IN 1988.
MARTINEZ v DEMOCRAT-HERALD, 669 P.2d 818 (OrCtAp 1985)
The plaintiff was a junior high school student when the newspaper published a story with photographs about drug use in schools. A photo of "apparent drug transactions" between students accompanied the story. The plaintiff was one of students in photos. While the newpaper attempted to obscure students' identities, the plaintiff claimed she was identified.
She claimed that the photo left a false impression because it "portrayed her as a drug user and as someone who deals in drugs.."
At trial the defendant introduced evidence of the plaintiff's use use of marijuana.
The jury found for the defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Magenis v. Fisher Broadcasting,103 Ore. App. 555; 798 P.2d 1106 18 MLR 1229 (Or.CtAp 1990)
Statute of limitations/False Light:
False light falls under ORS 12.120(2) which sets a 1 year limitation on libel and slander suits "when a claim characterized as false light alleges facts that also constitute a claim for defamation." Note, "catch-all statute" ORS 12.110(1) sets 2 year limit.
Citing Dean the court says libel and false light "are similar."