You are on page 1of 7

Jaimey Rouse

March 22, 2017

Report: Albright v. People Magazine

BACKGROUND:

In this case, People Magazine has been sued by Plaintiff James Albright, a personal and

professional bodyguard of over 10 years. Albright served as the celebrity Madonnas personal

bodyguard from January to July in 1992. In the year 2000, Albright entered a contract with OMara

Books in order to sell information about Madonna. The book titled Madonna was published in 2001 and

contained many photos, including one which showed Madonna with two men. The caption for the

picture noted one man to be James Albright. Neither of the men in the photo were James Albright. The

man in the photo mistaken as Albright was actually Jose Guitierez, who was an outspoken homosexual,

who was said to often dress as a woman and engage in homosexual, sexually graphic, lewd,

lascivious, offensive, and possibly illegal conduct. In the photo that was published, Guitierez was

wearing black pants, a black and white shirt, a black leather jacket, tinted sunglasses, a string necklace,

and an earring. The caption stated Madonna attends ex-lover Princes concert with her secret lover and

one-time bodyguard Jimmy Albright (left). In November of 2001, People Magazine published the same

photo from the book Madonna, along with the same erroneous caption. Albright is suing People

Magazine because he feels he was represented in a false light as a homosexual, and feels this photo has

caused people to believe that he is a homosexual. People magazine has been sued by Albright for the

torts of defamation/libel, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of

emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. These torts can also be called claims because once Albright

filed suit against People Magazine in court, they became claims against People Magazine. A tort refers to

a wrongful injury or harm to a person or their property. The person causing the harm is called a

tortfeasor. For someone to successfully sue another person for committing a tort, they must prove each

element of that tort. All torts have specific elements, or requirements that need to be met. On the

contrary, even if all elements of a tort are proven, there are many potential defenses to all torts. A
Jaimey Rouse
March 22, 2017

defense is a way for someone who is being sued to avoid liability for harm or damages that have

occurred. Liability is the tortfeasors responsibility for injuring or causing harm to the victim. In the next

few paragraphs, I will explain each claim against People Magazine in depth, as well as any possible

defenses to these claims. I will also include a prediction of how likely the claim is to succeed in court and

why, to provide a better understanding of this case.

DEFAMATION/LIBEL:

Defamation is the transmission to others of false statements that harm the reputation, business,

or property rights of a person. Libel refers to defamation that is written, rather than orally spoken. In

this case, the defamation claim is libel because the defamation claimed to have occurred was written

and published in a magazine. The elements that must be met for the tort of libel are (1) written libel

statement must be made, (2) false and defamatory statement about a person must be made, (3) the

tortfeasor must communicate the statement to a third party, and (4) the victims reputation in the

community must be harmed. Only parts of these elements could be potentially met. The caption did

falsely and publicly state that James Albright was pictured when he was not. The false statement was

communicated to a third party because it was published in a public magazine. However, for a statement

to be considered libel, it must harm the persons reputation, business, or property rights. Albright has

not specifically claimed that his reputation, business, or property rights were harmed. He only claimed

that the statement could potentially cause people to believe he is homosexual. Therefore, because

not all elements of libel can be proven, this tort is not likely to be proven in litigation. (Litigation is the

process of taking legal action at legal proceedings; e.g. fighting a case in court.) A defense to

defamation/libel is assumption of the risk. Because Albright was a professional bodyguard for over 10

years and was working for a very well-known celebrity at the times relevant to this matter, he should

reasonably have known and understood that there was a good chance that he could be negatively
Jaimey Rouse
March 22, 2017

impacted by bad publicity, including false statements made about him. It is commonly known that

publicity often makes statements that are wrong about celebrities and those associated with them,

therefore Albright should have reasonably had a full appreciation of the possible dangers associated

with his job, which he willingly chose to perform anyway. Another defense to this claim is mistake.

Because People Magazine published the photo of Guitierez with the erroneous caption based on the

same incorrect caption with the original photo in the book Madonna, they are justified in

unintentionally committing libel, because they had good-faith conviction that their statement was

justified and they did not mean to harm anyone, nor commit any wrong.

NEGLIGENCE:

Negligence is the failure of an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person to exercise due care in

a given set of circumstances. Negligence does not require any intent to commit a wrong. The tricky part

of negligence, however, is that for it to be proven, one must also prove that the tortfeasor could have

reasonably foreseen the damage or harm that the victim incurred as a result of the tortfeasors actions.

The elements required to be met for negligence are (1) a duty of care must exist, (2) the duty of care is

breached, (3) the tortfeasors actions must either be the cause in fact or proximate causation of harm to

the victim, and (4) the victim must incur damages as a result of the tortfeasors actions. The first

question to be asked in determining if People Magazine committed negligence is whether they owed a

duty of care to James Albright. The scope of ones duty of care only includes individuals who might

foreseeably be harmed as result of the tortfeasors actions. Because People Magazine thought that the

man pictured was indeed James Albright and not Jose Guitierez, they could not have reasonably

foreseen that the caption could potentially harm Albright. In addition, nothing in Guitierezs appearance

in the photo gave any indication that Albright is homosexual. The nature of the caption which referred

to Albright as Madonnas secret lover also furthermore stressed Albrights heterosexuality. For a
Jaimey Rouse
March 22, 2017

reader of People magazine to draw such an inference that Albright is homosexual, they would have to

follow Madonna and her cohort closely enough to recognize Guitierez as a homosexual, but not closely

enough to know that it was Guitierez in the photo rather than Albright. Very few, if any, readers would

fall into this specific category. Because People Magazine could not have reasonably foreseen James

Albright being harmed by their statement, he is not included in the scope of their duty of care, and

therefore he is not owed any duty of care from them. Because no duty of cared was owed, no duty of

care was breached. The elements of causation and damages also cannot be met because Albright has

not claimed to have endured any actual harm or damages as a result of the statement. For these

reasons, the claim of negligence is not likely to succeed at litigation. A possible defense to negligence in

this case is assumption of the risk, for the same reasons previously noted as a defense to defamation

and libel. Another defense to negligence is comparative negligence, which is the partial legal defense

that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim, based

upon the degree to which the plaintiff's negligence contributed to cause the injury. Albright was

comparatively negligent because he owed a duty of care to himself. He should reasonably have foreseen

the potential for harm in willingly taking and performing his job as a celebritys bodyguard, because it is

common that publicity makes statements that are wrong about celebrities and those associated with

them (or photographed with them). He chose to do this job regardless of its associated dangers, and

therefore proximately caused the potential for harm which he complains of in this case.

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS:

Negligent infliction of emotional distress occurs when the tortfeasors unintentional conduct

causes the victim severe mental anguish. The elements which must be proven for this tort are (1)

outrageous conduct by the tortfeasor, (2) the tortfeasor reasonably should have anticipated that the

harm which occurred would produce, (3) significant and reasonably foreseeable emotional injury to the

victim; when (4) the tortfeasor breached his or her duty of reasonable care to avoid causing such
Jaimey Rouse
March 22, 2017

emotional harm to the victim; and (5) the victim was a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff. This claim will be

hard for the plaintiff to prove in litigation because most of these elements cannot be met. Outrageous

conduct is conduct which shocks the conscience of a reasonable person. People Magazines conduct of

publishing a photograph with a caption accidentally naming Jimmy Albright is not considered

outrageous, because it was not intentional. The only way this conduct would shock a reasonable

persons conscience would be if it was done intentionally and maliciously. People Magazine also should

not have reasonably anticipated the harm which produced because they were unaware of the error in

the statement they made. The emotional distress Albright claims to have endured was not reasonably

foreseeable by People Magazine, therefore it is unlikely that Albright will succeed on this claim in

litigation. In addition, it can be argued that the level of mental distress claimed to have been endured by

Albright was not severe enough to make a claim for emotional distress. A defense to this tort is

comparative negligence, for the same reasons previously noted as a defense to negligence.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS:

Intentional infliction of emotional distress occurs when the tortfeasors intentional and

outrageous conduct causes severe emotional anguish in the victim. This tort consists of three elements

which are (1) outrageous conduct by the tortfeasor, (2) conduct is intended to cause severe mental

anguish in the victim, and (3) the victims suffering of severe mental anguish is a result of the

tortfeasors actions. This tort is unlikely to be proven in litigation because as previously stated, People

Magazines conduct was not intentional, which is a substantial requirement in proving this particular

tort. In addition, as previously stated, People Magazines conduct cannot be considered outrageous. It

would be possible to prove that Albrights claim of emotional suffering did occur because of People

Magazines actions, but this is only one element of three needed to prove intentional infliction of

emotional distress. Even this last element is arguable, because it is debatable whether the emotional
Jaimey Rouse
March 22, 2017

harm to Albright could be labeled severe mental anguish. In this case, we will argue that the harm

cannot be considered severe mental anguish because, as stated before, nothing in Guitierezs

appearance in the photo gave any indication that Albright is homosexual. Also, the nature of the caption

which referred to Albright as Madonnas secret lover furthermore stressed Albrights heterosexuality.

Because most people would not reasonably think that Albright was a homosexual strictly based off the

photo and caption published by People Magazine, the mental suffering that Albright claims could not

be labeled as severe enough to meet the requirements of the third element of this tort. A defense to

this claim is mistake, for the same reasons previously noted as a defense to defamation and libel.

Another defense to this claim is comparative negligence, for the same reasons previously noted as a

defense to negligence.

INVASION OF PRIVACY:

Invasion of privacy is when someone publicly exploits another persons private affairs in an

unreasonably intrusive manner. There are four separate types of invasion of privacy which are called

appropriation, unreasonable intrusion, public disclosure of private facts, and false light in the public eye.

Appropriation occurs when a tortfeasor uses another persons name or likeness without the consent of

that person, in order to gain some sort of benefit. In litigation, Albright might succeed in proving

appropriation because People Magazine did use his name without consent to gain some benefit, even

though they did not intend to name the wrong person in caption. Unreasonable intrusion is when a

tortfeasor engages in an excessive and highly offensive invasion upon another persons seclusion or

solitude, such as someone being strip-searched for being suspected of shoplifting. Unreasonable

intrusion did not occur in this case, because no physical intrusion occurred. Public disclosure of private

facts occurs when a tortfeasor communicates purely private information about someone to the public

without permission, and a reasonable person would find this disclosure extremely objectionable.
Jaimey Rouse
March 22, 2017

Albright could argue that this did occur when People Magazine named him in the photo without his

permission, because a reasonable person would likely object to this. It is unlikely, however, that Albright

would succeed in proving this tort because public figures, such as he, generally do not succeed in

lawsuits against the media, such as People Magazine, when these types of disclosures are made, unless

they are made with malice. Albrights name was not disclosed with malice by People Magazine,

therefore this tort is not likely to be proven. The last type of invasion of privacy is false light in the public

eye, which occurs when a tortfeasor publicly attributes to another individual false opinions, statements,

or actions. People Magazine did attribute a false statement to Albright in naming him in the photo when

it was really Guitierez. Therefore, this tort would not likely be proven in litigation. Although, fortunately

for People Magazine, the state in which this proceeding will be brought is Massachusetts, whose state

court has repeatedly refused to recognize any false light in the public eye invasion of privacy claims. For

this reason, it is unlikely that Albright will succeed on this claim. A defense to all types of invasion of

privacy claims is mistake, for the same reasons previously noted as a defense to defamation and libel.

CONCLUSION:

While it is impossible to say with certainty whether these claims by James Albright

against People Magazine will succeed, I feel that the general likelihood is slim. One of the biggest

reasons I feel this way is because for a plaintiff to succeed in a lawsuit, he or she must clearly state

claim(s) for which relief can be granted, and because Albright failed to specifically claim any actual real

damage or harm, but only the possibility of harm, the court will have a hard time finding that he is

entitled to any relief. Albright most likely will not be able to prove the necessary elements of each claim,

and even if he is able to prove a claim, People Magazine has defenses to each one. I would predict a

successful outcome of this case for People Magazine.

You might also like