Mr. O’Donnell can successfully allege a claim in the state of Arkansas asserting false-light invasion of privacy against Ms. Lyubov and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Whether or not Sarah Lyubov published the article with knowledge of the falsity of her statements or with reckless disregard of the facts can be proven either by if she showed purposeful ignorance regarding the falsity of the facts or if she entertained serious doubts if the facts were truthful through clear and concise evidence in both Ms. Lyubov’s statements regarding the publication and Ms. Lyubov’s actions, or lack thereof, in regards to the arrest reports. Also, the cause of action can be successfully filed because there is a three year statute of limitations in the state
…show more content…
Dodrill v. Arkansas Democratic Co., 590 S.W.2d 840 (Ark. 1979); Dodson v. Dicker, 812 S.W.2d 97 (Ark. Sup. Ct. 1991); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E (1977); New York Times Co., v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, (S.Ct. …show more content…
In Lee, the plaintiff, Clark, worked for Wal-Mart for almost ten years. Walmart Stores Inc., v. Lee, 74 S.W.3d 634, 640 (Ark. Sup. Ct. 2002). The defendant, Elder, investigated Clark as Wal-Mart’s loss prevention officer, on suspicions that Clark stole merchandise from Wal-Mart. Clark allowed Elder to access to his house and property to investigate and prove that Clark did not steal from Wal-Mart. Lee, 74 S.W.3d at 640-41. Elder called the police and reported that they were allowed to investigate Clark’s property to “‘. . . recover some property that had belonged to Wal-Mart’”. Lee, 74 S.W.3rd at 640. The police officer believed that Elder was referring to stolen property due to his statements. Id. Clark stated that the property he owned had accumulated from hobby as well as from associates at Wal-Mart to repair the items for resell. Lee, S.W.3d at 641. He offered to provide receipts as proof. Id. Elder disregarded Clark’s information and removed 400 items from his house and placed the items on Clark’s front lawn, resulting in reporters to arrive at his house and publish a news article stating Clark as a thief. Lee, S.W.3d at 641-42. The court held that Elder had committed false-light invasion of privacy. Lee, S.W.3d at
Dodrill v. Arkansas Democratic Co., 590 S.W.2d 840 (Ark. 1979); Dodson v. Dicker, 812 S.W.2d 97 (Ark. Sup. Ct. 1991); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E (1977); New York Times Co., v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, (S.Ct. …show more content…
In Lee, the plaintiff, Clark, worked for Wal-Mart for almost ten years. Walmart Stores Inc., v. Lee, 74 S.W.3d 634, 640 (Ark. Sup. Ct. 2002). The defendant, Elder, investigated Clark as Wal-Mart’s loss prevention officer, on suspicions that Clark stole merchandise from Wal-Mart. Clark allowed Elder to access to his house and property to investigate and prove that Clark did not steal from Wal-Mart. Lee, 74 S.W.3d at 640-41. Elder called the police and reported that they were allowed to investigate Clark’s property to “‘. . . recover some property that had belonged to Wal-Mart’”. Lee, 74 S.W.3rd at 640. The police officer believed that Elder was referring to stolen property due to his statements. Id. Clark stated that the property he owned had accumulated from hobby as well as from associates at Wal-Mart to repair the items for resell. Lee, S.W.3d at 641. He offered to provide receipts as proof. Id. Elder disregarded Clark’s information and removed 400 items from his house and placed the items on Clark’s front lawn, resulting in reporters to arrive at his house and publish a news article stating Clark as a thief. Lee, S.W.3d at 641-42. The court held that Elder had committed false-light invasion of privacy. Lee, S.W.3d at