eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Nevada Supreme Court
 2014-09

Crabb v. Greenspun Media Group ( 2014 )


Menu:
 
  •                    complaint as true and drawing all inferences in the plaintiffs favor. Buzz
Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas,
    124 Nev. 224
    , 227-28,
    181 P.3d 670
    ,
672 (2008).
Having reviewed appellant's proper person appeal statement,
respondents' responses, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the
district court erred, in part, by dismissing appellant's false light,
negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
Although the district court properly dismissed appellant's defamation and
slander per se claims, see Pope v. Motel 6,
    121 Nev. 307
    , 315,
    114 P.3d 277
    , 282 (2005), the district court erred by concluding that appellant's
false light and emotional distress claims relied upon appellant's
defamation claim, and thus, also failed as a matter of law. This court has
previously discussed that "[t]here are cases indicating that the false light
invasion of privacy may be committed even when the publication is not
defamatory." People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bobby Berosini,
Ltd.,
    111 Nev. 615
    , 622 n.4,
    895 P.2d 1269
    , 1273 n.4 (1995); see Machleder
v. Diaz,
    801 F.2d 46
    , 55 (2d Cir. 1986) ("[W]hile a false light claim may be
defamatory, it need not be."). "The false light privacy action differs from
a defamation action in that the injury in privacy actions is mental
distress from having been exposed to public view, while the injury in
defamation actions is damage to reputation." Rinsley v. Brandt,
    700 F.2d 1304
    , 1307 (10th Cir. 1983). The district court also erred in dismissing
appellant's negligence claim on the basis that it was derivative of the
unsupported defamation claim. We therefore reverse the district court's
order dismissing appellant's false light, emotional distress, and
negligence claims and remand this matter to the district court for
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 194Th F(IDR)
proceedings consistent with this order. We affirm, however, the portion of
the district court's order dismissing appellant's defamation and slander
per se claims.
It is so ORDERED.
J.
Hardesty
, J.
Douglas
CAS2A-nAl,"
Cherry
,J.
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
Tawanna K. Crabb
Campbell & Williams
Durham Jones & Pinegar
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A