A newspaper, prints Clark’s picture of Lana in his newspaper as a lead to an article concerning the negligence of children. The caption under the picture reads: "They ask to be killed." Lana, who has recovered from the accident, brings suit against Clark and Perry. What is the resul ?

COMPLETE PROBLEM

Lana, a ten-year-old child, is run over by a car negligently driven by Mitchell. Lana, at the time of the accident, was acting reasonably and without negligence. Clark, a newspaper reporter, photographs Lana while she is lying in the street in great pain. Two years later, Perry, the publisher of a newspaper, prints Clark's picture of Lana in his newspaper as a lead to an article concerning the negligence of children. The caption under the picture reads: "They ask to be killed." Lana, who has recovered from the accident, brings suit against Clark and Perry. What result? Explain.

Explanation:

Judgement for Lana against Perry but not against Clark. The facts make out a case against Perry for the tort of invasion of privacy in particular placing another in a false light (INVASION OF PRIVACY:FALSE LIGHT). Section 652E of the restatement imposes liability for publicity which places another in a false light. It is unlikely that Perry could utilize the first amendment as a defense because Lana was neither a public official nor a public figure. Even if that defense were available, it is forfeited if Perry acted with "malice", which appears to be the case here because Perry acted in reckless disregard of the truth. Clark did not commit the tort of intrusion because he photographed an event that occurred in public.

all of them make sense but, i would have to say ask someone who has been there/or lives there, and/or read recent newspapers from that city.

hope this !