United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 98-2104
RAYMOND VEILLEUX, KELLY VEILLEUX and PETER KENNEDY,
Plaintiffs, Appellees,
v.
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, ALAN HANDEL and FRED FRANCIS,
Defendants, Appellants.
No. 98-2176
RAYMOND VEILLEUX, KELLY VEILLEUX and PETER KENNEDY,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, ALAN HANDEL and FRED FRANCIS,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Boudin, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
William D. Robitzek with whom Berman & Simmons, P.A. was on
brief for plaintiffs.
Kenneth A. Cohen with whom John C. Englander and Goodwin,
Procter & Hoar LLP, Richard Cotton, Susan E. Weiner, Daniel M.
Kummer, National Broadcasting Company, Inc., Bernard J. Kubetz
and Eaton, Peabody, Bradford & Veague, P.A. were on brief for
defendants.
March 6, 2000
CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge. Defendant-appellants
National Broadcasting Company, Inc. [“NBC”], Alan Handel, and
Fred Francis [collectively, “defendants”] appeal from jury
verdicts totaling $525,000 in the District Court for the
District of Maine. Plaintiff-appellees Peter Kennedy, Raymond
Veilleux, and Kelly Veilleux [collectively, “plaintiffs”] sued
defendants under diversity jurisdiction on state-law claims of
defamation, misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, invasion of privacy, and loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants portrayed them in
a distorted, untrue manner in a “Dateline NBC” television
program concerning the perils to highway users caused by tired
long-distance truck drivers. The program prominently and often
unflatteringly featured Kennedy, a truck driver, as he drove a
tractor-trailer across the country in the employ of Ray
Veilleux’s trucking company.
Plaintiffs say their voluntary participation in the
program was enlisted by defendants’ false promises that the show
would not include a group critical of the trucking industry,
Parents Against Tired Truckers (“PATT”), and would portray
trucking in a “positive” light. To plaintiffs’ dismay, Kennedy
was depicted as an unsafe truck driver who regularly violated
federal regulations and who used illegal drugs shortly before
-3-
the program was filmed. The program suggested that many
truckers and trucking companies engaged in similar illegal and
dangerous practices in order to meet deadlines, and portrayed
Ray as tolerating or encouraging such conduct.
Defendants contend that there was insufficient
evidentiary support for the jury’s verdict on the many claims,
and this appeal gives rise to numerous complex factual and legal
issues. We find adequate evidence to support part of the
plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claim, but otherwise we reverse
the judgment below and remand, in part, for further proceedings.
Moreover, we reject plaintiffs’ cross-appeal, which was
conditioned upon our reversal of the judgment.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise
indicated. On April 19 and 26, 1995, Dateline NBC, an hour-long
news magazine program produced by NBC News, broadcast two
reports concerning the long-distance trucking industry entitled
"Keep on Truckin’” and "On the Road Again" (“the program" or
“the report”). The program emphasized the pressures on
long-distance truckers, the danger posed by truck-driver fatigue
to others on the nation’s highways, and the disregard of federal
"hours of service" and other regulations that govern the
industry. It prominently featured Kennedy, a long-distance
-4-
truck driver who, with his employer, Raymond Veilleux [“Ray”],
allowed a Dateline crew to accompany and film Kennedy on a
coast-to-coast run from California to Maine in September and
October of 1994.
The idea for the Dateline program arose out of a tragic
highway accident that occurred in Maine in October, 1993, in
which four teenagers were killed when their car was struck by a
truck driven by Robert Hornbarger, who later pleaded guilty to
falsifying his driving hours in his logbook. In July, 1994,
Handel, a freelance producer, contacted Dateline to suggest a
possible story concerning long-distance trucking: the proposed
story would be titled “Truckers -- Asleep at the Wheel.”
Dateline approved the story proposal and commissioned Handel to
produce the program. It assigned a Dateline associate producer,
Tracey Vail, to assist Handel, and assigned Fred Francis, a
veteran reporter, to help write the script and be the on-air
voice.1
In August, 1994, Dateline interviewed and filmed
relatives of one of the teenagers who was killed in Maine. The
Izers were the co-founders of Parents Against Tired Truckers
("PATT"), a group advocating stronger and better-enforced
1 Vail created a similar story proposal in August, 1994,
titled “Big Rig Deadly Dozing.”
-5-
trucking regulations, including those concerning driving hours.
Dateline then sought a long-distance truck driver who would
allow a television crew to accompany him or her on a
coast-to-coast run. On or about September 20, 1994, Vail
contacted Kennedy. Much of the content of the ensuing
conversations between Vail, Kennedy, Handel, and the Veilleuxs
was disputed at trial.
Kennedy testified that Handel stated that he had “heard
you guys had a lot of negative publicity up there in Maine” and
that “he’d like to do a trip on a truck to see what it was
really like, and do a little thing to put us in a positive
light, instead of all the negative publicity we’ve had.” In
response to Handel’s questions concerning how he “normally”
drove, Kennedy stated that he “occasionally” made minor
falsifications to his logbook.2 Kennedy told Handel that he
would need Ray Veilleux’s approval before participating in the
program.
Ray testified at trial that when Handel contacted him
and his wife, he asked Handel his “intentions” with regard to
the program. Handel responded that Dateline was seeking a
2 Similarly, Vail testified that Kennedy told her before
the filming that in the course of a typical coast-to-coast run,
he would exceed the permissible number of driving hours. This
was disputed at trial.
-6-
company that operated lawfully and safely to show “what it’s
really like to run a trip cross-country.” Ray testified that
Handel agreed that PATT had already gotten enough publicity, and
that he “wanted to show the other side of the coin,” the
“positive side.” Ray’s wife, Kelly Veilleux [“Kelly”],
similarly testified that Handel had stated that he had no
intention of including PATT in the program, and that she and Ray
had made clear that they “did not want to be involved in the
show if PATT had anything to do with it.” Handel did not
disclose that he had already filmed the Izers. At trial, Handel
denied making these representations.
After additional conversations with defendants, Kennedy
and Ray eventually agreed to participate in the program. It was
arranged that Dateline would videotape Kennedy’s departure from
Maine, scheduled for September 22, 1994, but would not otherwise
accompany or film him on his trip to California. Instead,
Dateline’s crew would film Kennedy on the return trip carrying
produce from California to Maine ("the Dateline trip").
The Veilleuxs testified that after Kennedy’s departure
from Maine, Handel called and stated that Dateline wanted to
show Kennedy falsifying his logbook and evading inspection
stations. Ray insisted that he would not agree to engage in
such conduct for the sake of the program and threatened to
-7-
terminate plaintiffs' participation. According to Ray, Handel
withdrew his request and agreed to “do it your way.” Handel
denied that this conversation occurred.
During Kennedy’s westward trip, he was informed by his
dispatcher that he had to go to a medical center in Phoenix,
Arizona, to submit to a random drug test required by federal
law. Kennedy contacted the Veilleuxs and informed him that he
had smoked marijuana at home about ten days earlier. Ray told
him that he must take the test, and that he should proceed with
the Dateline trip. Kennedy and the Veilleuxs did not learn of
the results of the test until after the Dateline trip was
completed.
On September 30, 1994, Kennedy met the NBC crew in
Salinas, California, where he picked up produce. The produce
was scheduled for delivery to Chelsea, Massachusetts, on or
about October 6. The NBC crew, including Dateline correspondent
Fred Francis, accompanied Kennedy, filming and interviewing him
en route. As discussed in more detail below, Kennedy stated in
the interview that he was violating the DOT hours regulations
and falsifying his logbook to cover up the violations.3
3 The hours-of-service regulations are set forth at 49
C.F.R. § 395.3.
-8-
In mid-October, Kennedy and the Veilleuxs received
notice of the results of the drug test in Phoenix. Kennedy had
tested positive for marijuana and amphetamines. Kennedy
immediately requested a retest of the sample.
Later in the fall of 1994, Vail and Francis received
information that Kennedy was no longer driving for Ray. When
Francis contacted Kennedy, he responded "it's a long story. . .
I can't get into it with you." However, Kennedy later agreed to
meet with Francis and Vail in Portland, Maine, on December 6,
1994, to discuss his employment status. At that meeting,
Kennedy told Francis and Vail that he had tested positive for
amphetamines and marijuana in a drug test administered days
before the Dateline trip. Kennedy testified that this
information was disclosed "off the record," while Francis and
Vail testified that it was not.
Dateline was subsequently provided with a written
statement dated December 19, 1994, prepared by Kennedy in
anticipation of a lawsuit for wrongful termination that Kennedy
considered bringing against Ray. The statement contained
Kennedy's account of the drug test and the circumstances of his
termination. In that statement, Kennedy denied ever taking
amphetamines and discussed the administration of the drug test,
his reaction to testing positive, and his attempts to clear his
-9-
name. Kennedy also stated that Ray had disclosed the results of
the drug test to another employee, who, in turn, had told other
drivers. This written statement was entered into evidence at
trial.
In early January, 1995, Kennedy agreed to be
re-interviewed by Francis on camera. When Francis first
inquired about the drug test, Kennedy stated that he did not
want to discuss it on camera. Kennedy threatened to leave when
Francis stated that the drug test “ha[d] to be” a part of the
program. After proceeding with the interview as to other topics
for several minutes, Francis revisited the issue. This time,
Kennedy admitted that he had failed the test but denied using
drugs. He then discussed his reaction to the discovery that he
failed the test, how he dealt with his employer, and his efforts
to get a second test taken.
The Dateline report was broadcast nationwide on NBC in
two parts on April 19 and 26, 1995. The first part primarily
covered Francis’ cross-country trip from California with
Kennedy; the second part recapped the trip and explored policy
issues relating to long-distance trucking and driver fatigue.
The program featured interviews with a Department of
Transportation [“DOT”] official charged with enforcing trucking
regulations, an expert on sleep deprivation, and PATT members
-10-
whose children had been killed in trucking accidents. It
included statements by Kennedy, including on-camera admissions,
that he had repeatedly violated federal regulations limiting the
number of hours truck drivers may drive and work in a specific
period, falsified his logbooks, and lied to federal inspectors.4
The report also disclosed that Kennedy had tested positive for
marijuana and amphetamines in a random drug test.
Ray testified that he was hospitalized with chest pains
following the first part of the broadcast, and his treating
physician testified that the stress of watching the program
contributed to his illness. Ray also testified that he was
financially damaged by the report, in that the company to which
he had leased his trucks terminated their business relationship,
causing loss of business from some major customers. Ray and
Kennedy testified that their reputations in the industry had
been damaged.
II. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
On January 17, 1997, Ray and Kennedy filed a diversity
complaint in the district court asserting seven causes of action
4 Plaintiffs alleged that eighteen separate statements
made in the program were defamatory, and the jury identified
thirteen of those statements as supporting their conclusion that
plaintiffs prevailed on their claims of defamation and “false
light” invasion of privacy. The thirteen statements are
addressed below.
-11-
under Maine law, including defamation, fraudulent and negligent
misrepresentation, intentional and negligent infliction of
emotional distress, unreasonable publication of private facts,
and false light invasion of privacy. Kelly brought a claim for
loss of consortium. Defendants moved for summary judgment on
all claims. In a published memorandum and order, Veilleux v.
National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 8 F. Supp.2d 23 (D. Me. 1998),
the district court dismissed Kennedy’s (but not Ray’s) claim for
misrepresentation on the ground that Kennedy had failed to
demonstrate pecuniary loss, as required by Maine law. It also
dismissed all plaintiffs’ claims for intentional infliction of
emotional distress and for punitive damages. The court allowed
the remaining claims to proceed to trial.
In the course of an eleven-day trial, the defendants
moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the
plaintiffs’ case. The district court denied that motion. The
jury awarded Ray $150,000 for pecuniary loss on his
misrepresentation claim; $50,000 for physical injury and/or
emotional distress on his negligent infliction of emotional
distress, defamation, and false light claims; and $100,000 for
injury to reputation on the defamation and false light claims.
It gave Kelly $50,000 for loss of consortium. The jury awarded
Kennedy $100,000 for emotional distress on his unreasonable
-12-
publication, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
defamation, and false light claims; and $75,000 for injury to
his reputation on the unreasonable publication, defamation, and
false light. The court entered judgment for plaintiffs on July
8, 1998.
On July 22, 1998, defendants moved again for judgment
as a matter of law, or in the alternative for a new trial or
remittitur. The district court rejected the defendants’ legal
arguments “for the reasons set forth in its summary judgment
memorandum and order and elsewhere in the record,” and held
that, “viewing the trial evidence in a light most favorable to
plaintiffs and drawing all justifiable inferences in their
favor, there is a legally sufficient basis on which a reasonable
jury could have rendered the verdict that this jury did.” The
court also declined to reduce the damages award. Accordingly,
an amended judgment was entered on September 22, 1998. This
appeal followed.
III. SUMMARY OF OPINION
Reviewing the jury’s verdict on each of the counts
under the heightened review standard required under the First
Amendment, see section IV, infra, we hold as follows:
First, we reverse the judgment in favor of Ray and
Kennedy on their defamation claim. See section V, infra.
-13-
Because the allegedly defamatory statements were reasonably
based on Kennedy’s admissions to Dateline or were otherwise
supported or protected, plaintiffs failed to carry their burden
of proving that the statements were materially false and
negligently made as required by Maine law and the First
Amendment.
Second, we reverse the judgment in favor of plaintiff
Ray Veilleux on his misrepresentation claims to the extent it
was premised on defendants’ alleged assurances that the
program’s portrayal of the trucking industry would be
“positive.” See section VI, infra. We believe that Maine
courts would not find actionable such a vague and, in this
context, constitutionally suspect promise. Awarding damages for
misrepresentation based on defendants’ more specific promise not
to include PATT in the program, however, offends neither Maine
law nor the First Amendment, and we remand that portion of the
claim to the district court for further proceedings.5
Third, we reverse the judgment as to Ray and Kennedy’s
negligent infliction of emotional distress claim. This claim
impermissibly circumvents Maine’s express limitation on the
5 We also deny Kennedy’s cross-appeal on this claim, in
which he contends that the harm to his reputation was sufficient
to permit him to state a misrepresentation claim under Maine
law.
-14-
underlying misrepresentation tort, which confines damages to
pecuniary harm. Moreover, plaintiffs have not established a
unique relationship between the parties, as required by Maine
law, through which defendants may be held responsible for
harming plaintiffs’ emotional well-being.
Fourth, we reverse the invasion of privacy judgment in
its entirety. See section VIII, infra. Under one theory,
Kennedy contended that defendants’ disclosure of his drug test
results amounted to actionable “unreasonable publication.”
Because Kennedy’s drug use was closely related to the theme of
highway safety, an issue of public concern featured in the
Dateline program, we conclude that the First Amendment protects
defendants’ publication. Kennedy and Ray’s “false light” theory
of invasion of privacy also fails, for the same reasons we
reverse the defamation judgment, as these causes of action
overlap in their relevant constitutional requirements.
Finally, we vacate and remand Kelly Veilleux’s loss of
consortium claim for further proceedings in the district court,
as her claim is entirely dependent on the outcome of Ray’s
claims. See section IX, infra. We also reject plaintiffs’
cross-appeal for punitive damages, on the ground that they did
not adduce sufficient evidence of common-law malice. See
section X, infra.
-15-
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient
for submission of plaintiffs’ claims to the jury. In weighing
such a contention in the ordinary case, we would review the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing
plaintiffs, drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor.
See McMillan v. Massachusetts Soc'y for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 299 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting
Morrison v. Carleton Woolen Mills, Inc., 108 F.3d 429, 436 (1st
Cir. 1997)). Reversal would be in order only if the evidence,
so viewed, would not have permitted a reasonable jury to find in
favor of the plaintiffs on any permissible theory. See Andrade
v. Jamestown Hous. Auth., 82 F.3d 1179, 1186 (1st Cir. 1996);
Conway v. Electro Switch Corp., 825 F.2d 593, 598 (1st Cir.
1987).
Deference to the jury is muted, however, when free
speech is implicated. See Levinsky’s, Inc. v. Wal-mart Stores,
Inc., 127 F.3d 122, 127 (1st Cir. 1997) (citing Bose Corp. v.
Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984)).
In cases raising First Amendment considerations, appellate
courts must conduct an “independent review of the evidence on
the dispositive constitutional issue.” Bose, 466 U.S. at 508.
Appellate courts -– especially but not only the Supreme Court -–
-16-
have been assigned this obligation in order to safeguard
precious First Amendment liberties. See id. at 511; Duffy v.
Sarault, 892 F.2d 139, 145 (1st Cir. 1989). The rule of
independent review applies regardless of whether the fact-
finding function was performed by a court or a jury. See Bose,
466 U.S. at 501.
In Bose, the Supreme Court addressed a determination
of “actual malice” in a bench trial of a product disparagement
claim. The petitioner challenged the First Circuit’s application
of a de novo standard in reviewing that determination, arguing
that Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) prescribed a clearly-erroneous
standard of review. See Bose, 466 U.S. at 498-99. Citing the
defamation case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
(1964), the Court held that a standard of “independent review”
was appropriate as a matter of federal constitutional law,
trumping Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). Bose, 466 U.S. at 511.
Following Bose, this court, like other courts of
appeal, has extended the independent review rule well beyond
defamation claims. We have stated that "where the trial court
is called upon to resolve a number of mixed fact/law matters
which implicate core First Amendment concerns, our review, at
least on these matters, is plenary." United States v. Amirault,
173 F.3d 28, 32 (1st Cir. 1999) (quoting AIDS Action Comm. of
-17-
Mass., Inc. v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 42 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.
1994)). Accordingly, we have applied a heightened standard of
review to several types of constitutional claims. See, e.g.,
Amirault, 173 F.3d at 33 (determination that photograph met
definition of “lasciviousness”); AIDS Action, 42 F.3d at 7
(findings that state agency’s rejection of condom advertisements
was content-based and that MBTA cars are public fora); Duffy,
892 F.2d at 145 (findings as to what constitutes protected
speech in public employee discharge case).
Independent review is subject to limitations, however.
First, a court of appeals will not conduct a plenary review of
the entire record. The Bose Court limited the scope of the
independent review:
The independent review function is not
equivalent to a "de novo" review of the
ultimate judgment itself, in which a
reviewing court makes an original appraisal
of all the evidence to decide whether or not
it believes that judgment should be entered
for plaintiff.
466 U.S. at 514 n.31. Second, the reviewing court does not
extend the independent review standard to all determinations
concerning a particular legal claim, but only to those that
specifically involve the application of First Amendment law to
specific facts. See id.; Amirault, 173 F.3d at 32-33; Duffy,
892 F.2d at 145. Purely factual determinations, particularly
-18-
those involving the credibility of witnesses, remain best
addressed by the factfinder, and are subject to the usual, more
deferential standard of review. See Duffy, 892 F.2d at 145.
We review the contested issues in this appeal under
these standards.
V. DEFAMATION
The jury found that plaintiffs had proven that thirteen
of the eighteen statements submitted to it were defamatory, and
that defendants had acted with actual malice.6 Accordingly, it
awarded Kennedy and Ray Veilleux damages for reputational harm
and emotional distress; it awarded Ray pecuniary damages as
well. Because the jury found actual malice, the district court
permitted it to award presumed as well as actual damages.
Defendants contend that plaintiffs failed to prove
falsity and negligence as to any of the thirteen statements.
They argue that these elements cannot be satisfied, as a matter
of law, because Dateline accurately reported what Kennedy
himself had stated during videotaped interviews. Alternatively,
defendants insist that at least three statements were
constitutionally protected expressions of opinion or figurative
6 Plaintiff-appellee Kelly Veilleux asserted only a claim
for loss of consortium. In discussing defamation and the other
claims apart from loss of consortium, our use of the term
“plaintiffs” refers ordinarily to Kennedy and Ray Veilleux.
-19-
speech, and that others were not “of and concerning” the
plaintiffs. Finally, defendants argue that there was
insufficient evidence of actual malice to permit plaintiffs to
recover presumed damages.
A. Common law and constitutional principles
A common law claim of defamation under Maine law
requires: (a) a false and defamatory statement concerning
another; (b) an unprivileged publication to a third party; (c)
fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the
publisher; and (d) either actionability of the statement
irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm
caused by the publication. See Lester v. Powers, 596 A.2d 65,
69 (Me. 1991) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558).
Under Maine law, a statement is defamatory "if it tends
so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the
estimation of the community or to deter third persons from
associating or dealing with him." Bakal v. Weare, 583 A.2d
1028, 1029 (Me. 1990). Allegedly defamatory language must be
“construed in the light of what might reasonably have been
understood therefrom by the persons who [heard] it.” Marston v.
Newavom, 629 A.2d 587, 592 (Me. 1993). A defamation claim may
not be based solely on a reading that interprets the language in
the most negative way possible. See Bakal, 583 A.2d at 1030.
-20-
The Supreme Court of the United States has determined
that the federal constitution imposes certain requirements on
defamation actions independent of those established by the
state’s own law. See generally Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.,
497 U.S. 1, 11-17 (1990). First, where the statements are
uttered by a media defendant and involve matters of public
concern, the plaintiff must shoulder the burden of proving the
falsity of each statement. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v.
Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 776 (1986). Second, only statements that
are “provable as false” are actionable; hyperbole and
expressions of opinion unprovable as false are constitutionally
protected. See Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 19-20; Levinsky’s, 127
F.3d at 127. Third, private individuals must prove fault
amounting at least to negligence on the part of a media
defendant, at least as to matters of public concern. See Gertz
v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347 (1974); see also
Levinsky’s, 127 F.3d at 128 n.4; Restatement (Second) of Torts
§ 580B cmt. c. Fourth, a private plaintiff must prove "actual
malice" to recover presumed and punitive damages for a statement
involving public concern. Levinsky’s, 127 F.3d at 128 (citing
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S.
749, 756-57 (1985)). Insofar as the jury’s verdict raises
questions of compliance with these constitutionally-mandated
-21-
elements, it warrants independent review. 7 See Harte-Hanks
Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 685 (1989).
Before turning to the broadcast statements themselves,
we note that as each related to the risks that long-distance
truckers pose to other drivers on the nation’s highways, they
unquestionably involved a matter of public concern. It was
therefore plaintiffs’ constitutional burden to show the falsity
of each statement, and our duty, on appeal, to independently
verify that this burden was met. See Hepps, 475 U.S. at 776.
Falsity “overlooks minor inaccuracies and concentrates upon
substantial truth.” Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501
U.S. 496, 516 (1991). Where a defendant alters a speaker's
words but effects no material change in meaning, the speaker
suffers no injury to reputation that is compensable under the
law of defamation. See id. A statement is not false unless it
"would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from
that which the pleaded truth would have produced." Id. at 517
(internal quotations omitted); see also Restatement (Second) of
Torts § 581A cmt. f (1977) (it is not necessary to establish the
literal truth of the precise statement made; slight inaccuracies
7 Hence we must independently review, inter alia, whether
plaintiffs established that defendants were at least negligent
in making the statements, as this is a constitutional
requirement (as well as a necessary element of proof under Maine
law).
-22-
of expression are immaterial provided the defamatory charge is
true in substance).
B. Regulatory violations: Category 1
On appeal, defendants have grouped the thirteen
broadcast statements for which they were found liable into four
categories, groupings we shall follow in this opinion. The
statements in Category 1 include Dateline’s broadcast assertions
of Kennedy’s violation of federal regulations as to his hours
and his logbook. Defendants contend that each of their
statements was truthfully, or at least non-negligently, based on
Kennedy’s own admissions made before the broadcast. Hence,
according to defendants, the statements could not justify the
jury’s finding of defamation.
In the first of the Category 1 statements, identified
as statement (C), Dateline describes the portion of Kennedy’s
trip from Phoenix to Salinas, where he met the Dateline crew
before proceeding to Reno:
(C) "Kennedy started this trip in Maine and
drove
six days to Denver and on to Phoenix. After
a drive that long, federal regulations
required Kennedy to spend a day off the
road, resting. Instead, ignoring the law,
on his seventh day on the road, he's come
straight to Salinas, California." [later]
"After driving west all the way across the
country in seven days, Kennedy now has just
six days to deliver his load back east from
Salinas, California, to Boston . . . "
-23-
[later] "In fact, regulations required
Kennedy to sleep before leaving Salinas,
because he spent twelve hours loading."
[later] "So on his eighth day on the road,
Kennedy heads out without any sleep at all."
Defendants insist that all of statement (C) was substantially
accurate, having been based on Kennedy’s own taped statements to
Francis after he met the Dateline crew in California.
Statement (C) can be split into four parts. The first
concerns the alleged illegality of Kennedy’s driving from
Phoenix to Salinas (with a stop in Wheeler Ridge, California, to
sleep) without spending a day “off the road.” 49 C.F.R. §
395.3(b)(2) (1994) sets forth the “seventy-hour rule,” in which
a driver cannot drive after being on duty for seventy hours
within an eight-day period. The relevant eight-day period
revolves, such that each day, the driver subtracts from his or
her total hours the on-duty hours accrued nine days previously.
The record cannot be said to establish definitively
whether Kennedy in fact “ignored the law,” viz. violated the
seventy-hour rule in driving to Salinas from Phoenix. Kennedy
testified at trial that, upon redoing his logbook, he concluded
that he had enough hours remaining to drive legally from Phoenix
to Salinas without taking a day off. However, Kennedy’s
admissions, made in the recorded interviews prior to the airing
of the Dateline program, support the broadcast statement.
-24-
Plaintiffs have not proven fault, as required by Maine and
federal constitutional law, if defendants’ report was reasonably
based upon information the plaintiffs gave them even if later
the truth of the information becomes questionable. See Courtney
v. Bassano, 733 A.2d 973, 976 (Me. 1999) (plaintiff not
negligent for purposes of Maine defamation law because she had
“reasonable basis” for her statements); see also Penobscot
Indian Nation v. Key Bank of Maine, 112 F.3d 538, 559-61 (1st
Cir. 1997).
Here, defendants’ report was supported by a recorded
interview with Kennedy, not included in the program, in which
Kennedy told Francis that he did not have “enough hours” to get
from Phoenix to Salinas. In addition, the following further
exchange between Francis and Kennedy further supported the
broadcast report:
Kennedy: So we'll say that I had eleven hours
available. You know, Okay. So I have a seven-hour
ride to get to the L.A. area or the produce area to
get my produce. Well, when I get there I got sixty-
seven or sixty-eight hours or something like that.
Okay? We'll say -- but that night I don't pick up any
hours cause it was the eighth day back home, you know,
eight days back, I was off. So it's a zero, nothing
comes off.
Francis: The next day at midnight zero again?
Kennedy: Nothing comes off. And I still only have
three
hours available. What can I do? I gotta sit for two
days to get enough hours to load to get started back
home again.
Francis: What you did was what all drivers do? Right?
-25-
And what is that? You didn't sit for two days?
Kennedy: No.
Based upon the above exchange, defendants could have reasonably
understood that when Kennedy reached Los Angeles he had already
driven for sixty-seven or sixty-eight hours, and that since he
still had approximately three hundred miles to go before
reaching Salinas, he would necessarily have exceeded the
seventy-hour maximum by the time he got to Salinas.
To be sure, Kennedy later testified at trial that he
was not in fact legally required to take a day off after
reaching Phoenix, as his further review indicated that he had
enough hours to drive legally from Phoenix to Salinas. But this
post-broadcast recapitulation does not establish that defendants
were negligent in earlier accepting Kennedy’s contrary
admissions. Kennedy had conceded, in interviews taped before
the broadcast, that he did not have enough hours and, absent
reason to disbelieve that version, Dateline was entitled to rely
on it. Plaintiffs point to no facts indicating that it was
unreasonable for defendants to have credited Kennedy’s
admissions at the time of the broadcast; for example, Kennedy
did not inform anyone before the broadcast that he had
miscalculated the hours in his logbook, or of other
circumstances showing that a seventy-hour-rule violation had not
taken place. Plaintiffs have not, therefore, presented evidence
-26-
from which a jury could reasonably conclude that defendants
spoke negligently in this portion of statement (C).8
The next controverted portion of statement (C) was
that, "After driving west all the way across the country in
seven days, Kennedy now has just six days to deliver his load
back east from Salinas, California, to Boston . . . " Plaintiff
Kelly Veilleux, a driver-manager for her husband’s company and
Kennedy’s supervisor at the time of the Dateline run, testified
at trial without contradiction that the time allotted for
Kennedy’s return journey was, in fact, six days. It is hard to
see, therefore, why Dateline’s remark that he “now has just six
days . . .” is untruthful.
Plaintiffs note that Kennedy testified at trial that
he felt no pressure from the client (i.e. the shipper) to
complete the trip within six days. However, Kennedy did not
question that his employer had -– as Kelly Veilleux testified –-
scheduled six days for the run. Moreover, saying that Kennedy
had just six days for the return trip does not disparage Kennedy
or portray him in a negative manner. A too-short deadline would
8 Kennedy testified that the quoted statements were
merely hypothetical discussions of the operation of the seventy-
hour rule, and did not pertain directly to the Phoenix-Salinas
portion of the trip. The record indicates sufficient contextual
specificity, however, such that defendants could have reasonably
believed that Kennedy was describing this particular journey.
-27-
primarily reflect upon whomever imposed the deadline, in this
case his employer, who conceded allotting six days for the
return trip. Thus, in Kennedy’s case, the statement was not
only supported by Kelly Veilleux’s testimony, but failed to
satisfy the requirement under Maine law that it “tend . . . to
harm the reputation of another [so] as to lower him in the
estimation of the community or to deter third persons from
associating or dealing with him." See Bakal, 583 A.2d at 1029.
Kennedy’s employer, Ray Veilleux, was, to be sure, also
one of the plaintiffs, and Dateline’s statement might be seen as
harming him. However, given Kelly Veilleux’s uncontradicted
testimony that six days had been scheduled for Kennedy’s return
trip, we think the record provides insufficient basis for a jury
finding that the Dateline assertion was negligent or materially
false as to Ray. Kennedy’s testimony -- that he felt no
pressure from the client to complete the eastward trip precisely
within six days, i.e. by midnight on October 5, 1994, and that
he could have received an extension of time from the client if
he so requested -- did not controvert Kelly Veilleux’s testimony
that the employer had set a six-day return schedule. We see no
material falsehood. See Masson, 501 U.S. at 517.
-28-
In the third portion of statement (C), Dateline stated,
"In fact, regulations required Kennedy to sleep before leaving
Salinas, because he spent twelve hours loading." Kennedy
testified at trial, without contradiction, that this statement
was false in that he had spent only three hours loading his
truck. Moreover, the relevant regulations only require that he
take time off, not that he sleep.
The statement as to taking twelve loading hours was
indeed unsupported, and no regulation has been called to our
attention requiring drivers to sleep rather than, in specified
circumstances, to take time off. However, the thrust of the
statement -- that regulations prohibited Kennedy from driving
when he left Salinas -- was amply supported by Kennedy’s taped
statements prior to the broadcast. Not only did Kennedy then
indicate that he was in violation of the seventy-hour rule when
he reached Salinas, but he also stated prior to the broadcast
that leaving Salinas without a break, after having been "up all
day," was "probably illegal." (Kennedy admitted that he did not
sleep until reaching Reno, twenty-two hours after he last slept
in Wheeler Ridge.) Given these admissions, which were not
withdrawn before the broadcast, we do not believe that whatever
inaccuracies existed were sufficiently material to establish
defamation. See Masson, 501 U.S. at 517.
-29-
The final disputed portion of (C) immediately follows
the assertion that “regulations required Kennedy to sleep before
leaving Salinas.” It states: "So on his eighth day on the road,
Kennedy heads out without any sleep at all." Although conceding
that Kennedy did not sleep in Salinas before heading out,
plaintiffs point out that, before driving to Salinas, he had
slept in Wheeler Ridge, and criticizes as false the assertion
that Kennedy headed out “without any sleep at all.” But we
think the most plausible interpretation of this statement is
that Kennedy did not sleep in Salinas before heading out (a
matter iterated in the preceding sentence) before departing on
the eastbound journey with the Dateline crew. That construction
fits with Kennedy’s statement in an interview that was aired in
the report:
Francis: But why didn’t you take a snooze break before
you left for California?
Kennedy: Never do. I, I get out of here . . .
that’s the way I’ve always done it for years –- I
always get to Reno.
See Bakal, 583 A.2d at 1030 (defamation claim may not be based
on interpretation of language in most negative way possible).
In context, we think the statement was substantially true, hence
not a sufficient basis for finding defamation.
We turn next to statement (M), another of the Category
1 statements upon which the jury found defamation liability.
-30-
This also concerned Kennedy’s violation of regulations relating
to permissible on-duty hours:
(M) "As you will see, incredibly, it will be his
last sleep. As he often does, Kennedy will go
from Chicago to Boston -- eleven hundred miles, a
drive of over twenty hours -- with no sleep."
Plaintiffs contend that Kennedy’s trial testimony that
he napped in Ohio was evidence from which the jury could find
statement (M) to be false. Regardless of whether statement (M)
was literally true, however, the record indicates that Kennedy
made taped admissions prior to the broadcast that fully
supported it at that time. Defendants point to the following
taped colloquy between Francis and Kennedy:
Francis: You, right now, it's almost midnight,
have been awake forty hours.
Kennedy: Yeah.
Francis: How d'you feel? Honest.
Kennedy: Well, I'm tired, but I'm not falling
asleep. I'm not dozing or anything like that.
I'm worn out, you know . . . .
Francis: . . . You think -- you're not fatigued.
Kennedy: No. Programmed.
Francis: You know that a lot of people
listening to this are going to think you're
BS-ing me -- that nobody can drive a big eighteen-wheeler
like that for forty hours from Chicago to Boston and not be
really wiped out.
Kennedy: [Laughing] I'm not bullshittin'. But
I had to do it. To be here, right? . . . It's
routine, that's all I can say, it's routine.
While Kennedy testified at trial that he had, in fact,
napped for a couple of hours in Ohio, he did not make this point
to Francis at the earlier interview when Francis stated that
-31-
Kennedy had been “awake forty hours.” Moreover, Kennedy himself
repeated that statement later, in a taped conversation with his
girlfriend in Waterville, Maine: “Fred says ‘do you realize
you’ve been up for forty-something hours?’. . . yeah, so what?
I mean, I do it all the time.” Defendants could reasonably
rely, in the broadcast, on Kennedy’s version as conveyed to them
then. They cannot be held accountable for corrections to which
Kennedy testified after the broadcast.
We turn next to statement (Q), which further alleged
illegal conduct by Kennedy:
(Q) [Francis to Veilleux:] "[Kennedy] didn't take
the required time off. He made the log up as
he went along so he would look legal."
As discussed above, the statement that “Kennedy didn’t
take the required time off” was supported by Kennedy’s recorded
pre-broadcast admissions; plaintiffs failed, therefore, to make
the necessary showing of negligence. As to whether Kennedy
“made the log up as he went along so he would look legal,"
defendants based their contention on the following taped
statements made prior to the broadcast:
Handel: So here we are, Sunday morning, just
outside of Salt Lake City, Utah . . . and
you're just sitting in your cab doing what?
Kennedy: Falsifying my log book. . . . I have
to do it. You know, there's no way around it.
I have to do it.
-32-
Kennedy also referred to his log book as "a lie book" in which
he had to "incriminat[e] [him]self . . . to make a living."
Moreover, Kennedy indicated that he would create a log of a
fictitious trip in order to conceal his admitted violation of
the seventy-hour rule on the final leg of his journey:
Kennedy: Yeah. . . . Oh, I'll have to make out
a little log book.
Francis: Oh, you'll do this whole fiction all
over again? . . .
Kennedy: What I'll have to do is -- make a
little log: "Left home, took a load of
berries, one to Middleboro, cold storage" or
something like that.
These statements provide ample support for Dateline’s broadcast
assertion that Kennedy falsified his logbook “as he went along
so he would look legal.” Defamation liability cannot be
premised on them.
Another challenged broadcast statement, statement (K),
similarly concerns Dateline’s portrayal of Kennedy’s alleged
failure to take off-duty time as required by law:
(K) "Remember, Kennedy hasn't taken any
time off since he left Maine eleven days
ago. That's blatantly illegal" [later]
"But he hasn't taken any time off
since he began. That's against the
law, and it now appears Kennedy's
headed for trouble."
The truthfulness of this statement turns in part on the
meaning of the phrase “time off.” A reasonable viewer would not
necessarily understand the broadcast to mean that Kennedy had
-33-
not slept for eleven days. The statement more plausibly
indicates that Kennedy had not had taken any significant amount
of time off-duty during the trip, or perhaps that he had driven
every day since leaving Maine.
In describing the conduct as illegal, defendants could
reasonably have relied on Kennedy’s admissions of illegality
described supra. Moreover, the statement “hasn’t taken any time
off” was vague and susceptible of more than one meaning.
Defamation liability should not be premised on statements of
such uncertain meaning. See Levinsky’s, 127 F.3d at 129-30; see
also McCullough v. Visiting Nurse Service of Southern Maine,
Inc., 691 A.2d 1201, 1204 (Me. 1997) (visiting nurse, who had
been fired, could not recover for defamation on basis of vague
statement that she was “unavailable” to perform her assigned
visits).
Plaintiffs complain that the voice-over statement was
misleadingly accompanied by an inappropriate videotape of
Kennedy pulled over on the side of the road, supposedly in
nervous anticipation of an inspection station. The footage was,
in fact, taped several days previously, in Salinas. Inaccurate
reportage is not to be condoned and could well be defamatory if
it otherwise met the necessary standards. Plaintiffs fail,
however, to show how the use of the earlier taped scene effected
-34-
any “material change in the meaning conveyed by the statement.”
See Masson, 501 U.S. at 517. We conclude that plaintiffs did
not present a jury question as to statement (K)’s falsity or
defendants’ negligence.
The next statement at issue, statement (A), purportedly
summarizes the illegal activities practiced by Kennedy:
(A) "Almost every time [Peter Kennedy] goes to
work he breaks the law."
This statement is not expressly limited to the several
days that Dateline filmed Kennedy; rather, it appears to
characterize Kennedy’s general driving practices. The question
is whether defendants had sufficient evidence from which to make
such a generalization, not limited to violations of regulations
on the trip with Dateline. Could Dateline reasonably infer from
what it observed and heard about Kennedy’s activities that he
likely broke the law “almost every time [he] goes to work” as
part of his usual truck driving practices?
Several taped admissions allow reasonable inferences
that Kennedy’s regulatory violations were not isolated
instances. Kennedy told Francis that he "can't be reprogrammed,
so I am breaking the law"; that he does “drive over the 10
hours"; and that he "never" took a "snooze break" before
departing California, even though this practice was "probably
illegal." Kennedy also admitted to Francis:
-35-
Kennedy: I know my limits . . . I can go sometimes --
fifteen hours, twelve hours, eighteen hours --
sometimes only four hours.
Francis: How about twenty hours, forty hours? You've
done that too, right?
Kennedy: Oh, it has been done, oh yeah, yeah, many
times.
With regard to falsifications in his log-book, Kennedy stated on
camera "no one would last doing it legally . . . it would be
over for them." Moreover, Kennedy admitted in his trial
testimony that the statement in the report that he was “used to
going over the ten-hour legal driving limit" was true.
Kennedy argues that defendants possessed ample
information, at the time they made the report, that Kennedy was
normally a safe and law-abiding driver. Kennedy also testified
that the Dateline trip was unusual, and that he violated
regulations only because of delays imposed by Dateline. The
above admissions, however, point to more frequent and regular
violations. For Dateline to say these violations occurred
“almost every time [he] goes to work” is not so far off the mark
as to warrant finding that defendants negligently extrapolated
from the information they possessed at the time they created the
report. Reporters have leeway to draw reasonable conclusions
from the information before them without incurring defamation
liability. Cf. Courtney, 733 A.2d at 976; see also Penobscot
Indian Nation, 112 F.3d at 559-61. We hold that plaintiffs did
-36-
not meet their burden to establish the falsity of the comment
and defendants’ negligence in making it.
The next and final statement in Category 1 also
concerns Kennedy’s alleged law-breaking:
(B) "Kennedy is angry that he has to sidestep
federal rules just about every day he's on the
job; so he allowed DATELINE cameras to record
his journey. It will be a rare look at a
pressure-packed run, with the law being broken
all the way."
There is ample evidence in the record supporting the
veracity of defendants’ statement that Kennedy was angry about
the regulations. In addition to the statements described
above, Kennedy repeatedly expressed on camera his opposition to
federal trucking regulations:
Kennedy: I'm against the system. I'm against
their -- their rules and their regulations, and
invasion of my privacy. And my constitutional
rights are taken right away the minute I walk
in the door of this cab.
Kennedy also referred to the hours-of-service and log-keeping
requirements as "communism" and "regulation-strangulation."
Moreover, he stated to Handel that under the regulations, "we'd
be already a day late for where we're going with a load. The
shelf life would be gone by two or three days by the time we
ever got there legally . . ." This exchange continued as
follows:
-37-
Handel: So your beef is that in order to do your
job, to earn a living, you got to do something
that's in effect illegal, you got to falsify your
log books?
Kennedy: Right, I do, yes. Or I'll just sit here
and twiddle my thumbs, because I'm out -- I'm out
of hours for the day . . . .
Given these and Kennedy’s other statements, plaintiffs cannot
justify the defamation verdict based upon defendants’ statement
that Kennedy was angry about government regulation.
Plaintiffs contend that defendants falsely drew a
causal link between Kennedy’s “anger” and his agreement to
participate in the Dateline show, and that Kennedy in fact chose
to participate in order to show the positive side of the
trucking industry. Between the broadcast report and plaintiffs’
own briefs, however, a number of motivations have been ascribed
to Kennedy, and the motivation at issue in statement (B)
appears as well-supported by the evidence as any.9 In any event,
the drawing of this connection did not cause plaintiffs to
suffer injury beyond what would have otherwise occurred. See
Masson, 501 U.S. at 516. In the absence of this specific
statement, listeners might have logically concluded from
9 Toward the close of the final segment of the Dateline
report, the narrator states that Kennedy “wanted to show the
pressures that hard-working drivers face.” In their appellate
brief, plaintiffs contend that Kennedy’s motivation was, inter
alia, to show the need for regulatory reform and demonstrate
that the regulations were outdated.
-38-
Kennedy’s comments in the broadcast itself that these stemmed
from his anger at the regulatory system.
As to the reference in statement (B) to “the law being
broken all the way,” this was similar to statement (A), supra.
For the same reasons given in reference to (A), we conclude that
a defamation claim cannot be sustained on that assertion.
(C) Risk and danger: Category 2
A second set of the thirteen statements upon which the
jury premised its defamation verdict concern the risks flowing
from Kennedy’s behavior. Defendants contend that these
statements are constitutionally protected because they are true
or, alternatively, because they described Kennedy’s driving
routine “with some rhetorical flourish, or added an opinion
about the risks on the road.”
This court said in Levinsky’s that “the First Amendment
does not inoculate all opinions against the ravages of
defamation suits.” 127 F.3d at 127. A statement couched as an
opinion that presents or implies the existence of facts that are
capable of being proven true or false may be actionable. See
id. (citing Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 18-19); see also Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 566 (1977) ("A defamatory communication may
consist of a statement in the form of an opinion, but a
statement of this nature is actionable only if it implies the
-39-
allegation of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the
opinion.").
Nonetheless, opinions amounting to "imaginative
expression" and "rhetorical hyperbole" are protected. See
Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20; Levinsky’s, 127 F.3d at 127. Whether
an opinion is protected hyperbole depends primarily upon whether
a reasonable person would not interpret it as providing actual
facts about the described individual. See Levinsky’s, 127 F.3d
at 131. We now turn to the statements at issue.
(N) “In twenty-seven years of hard driving, Kennedy says
he has racked up over three million miles -– sleeping
less than he should, and gambling that his fatal
fatigue number doesn’t come up.”
Kennedy testified that while it was true he has driven
more than three million miles, the remainder of the statement
was false. He complains that the tape was edited to give the
impression that he admitted to sleeping less than he should and
gambling with lives. Defendants contend that statement (C) is
either true, being based on verifiable facts, or else is a
protected expression of opinion and/or hyperbole.
We find the statement that Kennedy said he was
“sleeping less than he should” to be non-actionable. Kennedy’s
admissions supra regarding lack of sleep and off-duty time
undermine the required finding of negligence. We think there
was a sufficient foundation for this assertion, especially given
-40-
the vagueness of the term “should.” See id. at 129-30 (no
defamation liability based on words that are “highly subjective
and susceptible of numerous interpretations”).
Dateline’s statement that "[i]n twenty-seven years of
hard driving, Kennedy [was] . . . gambling that his fatal
fatigue number doesn’t come up” was, we think, a permissible
summation of Dateline’s evaluation of Kennedy’s driving
practices. See id. at 131. The expression was hyperbolic, but
did not exceed what a journalist, presented with the information
Dateline had about Kennedy, could reasonably report. See id.
This narration was accompanied by film footage of Kennedy
playing a slot machine at a rest stop. We think a reasonable
observer would understand it to be a dramatic expression of
Dateline’s viewpoint that inadequate sleep among truck drivers,
as exemplified by Kennedy, is widespread and dangerous. We do
not believe that the First Amendment allows defamation liability
to be premised on a statement such as (D).
(P) “You met Peter Kennedy, a trucker who says he has to
lie to inspectors to stay on the road . . . But this
stay awake and on the road at all costs mentality has
led to many accidents and deaths.”
Plaintiffs contend that this statement inaccurately
links Kennedy’s lies to accidents and deaths, and leads viewers
to believe that Kennedy personally caused mayhem on the road.
Defendants argue that this interpretation is unreasonable and
-41-
that the latter portion of the statement reflects its protected
opinion about the dangers of violating regulations.
The reference to “lies to inspectors,” standing alone,
is not defamatory, as it is amply supported by Kennedy’s
admissions, described supra, regarding false statements in his
log book. We do not believe, furthermore, that a reasonable
viewer would conclude that Dateline was accusing Kennedy of
personally causing highway accidents and deaths. Rather, this
“stay awake and on the road at all costs mentality” was said to
have “led” to many accidents and deaths, presumably in the cases
of other drivers. The program nowhere reported any accidents or
deaths involving plaintiffs, nor did it accuse plaintiffs of
being so responsible.
Insofar as Dateline was expressing its own opinion as
to a supposed connection between the described “mentality” and
accidents, that expression was constitutionally protected.
Looking at the broadcast in its entirety, defendants’ statement
drew reasonable support from the information presented. Besides
Kennedy’s own admissions and conduct, there were supporting
comments by an expert on sleep deprivation. 10 See Phantom
10 Moreover, Kennedy himself described a connection
between the pressures imposed by compliance with regulations and
accidents:
They don’t have any idea of what it’s like to sit in this
-42-
Touring, Inc. v. Affiliated Publication, 953 F.2d 724, 730 (1st
Cir. 1992) (newspaper piece not defamatory when considered in
context of full disclosure of underlying facts, such that
readers could draw different conclusions). We think that
reasonable viewers would understand this statement, even if
sensationally worded, to be one of viewpoint rather than fact.
We conclude Category 2 with statement (O):
(O) “In just under six days, he has slept only twenty-one
hours, an average of three and a half hours a
day . . . [Peter Kennedy] has broken the law, put
himself and others at risk through dangerously long
hours.”
Plaintiffs do not contend on appeal that the tally of
Kennedy’s sleep in the first sentence of statement (O) is
defamatory; nor do they dispute that Kennedy broke the law.11
Rather, they contest the characterization of Kennedy as putting
people at risk by driving long hours. Defendants reply that
truck for seven hundred miles a day, for five days, and
babysit this load, helping you load, checking your
temperatures, and running and juggling your logs, to be
right –- to be as legal as you can -– stress! Stress
causes fatigue. Fatigue causes sleep. Sleep causes
accidents. It’s the pressure.
11 Plaintiffs contend that Kennedy violated applicable
regulations only once, when he admittedly exceeded the seventy-
hour rule at the end of the eastward trip, between Boston and
Maine. As discussed supra, however, plaintiffs have not
established negligence as to defendants’ reportage of Kennedy’s
law-breaking to the extent reasonably based on Kennedy’s on-
camera admissions at the time.
-43-
Statement (O) expresses Dateline’s protected opinion that
Kennedy’s behavior was risky.
Again, defendants’ statement as to the risk involved
in Kennedy’s activity is not provably false, and was supported
by other information presented in the program from which such
conclusions might rationally be drawn. As to the Dateline
opinion itself –- that driving without much sleep, as Kennedy
did, puts people at risk -- Dateline was entitled to express it.
It was not a view that implied new and additional, or
unsupported, facts about Kennedy.
D. Inspection stations: Category 3
The next category of statements concern the inspection
stations encountered by Kennedy on his eastbound journey with
the Dateline crew.
(H) "As Kennedy heads east through Utah, all the
inspection stations on the trip east have been
closed. He's escaped any scrutiny, and as far as
he's concerned, none is needed."
Plaintiffs argue that this statement is defamatory
insofar as it represents that Kennedy “escaped any scrutiny.”12
Kennedy testified at trial that he did indeed “go through”
inspection stations, while accompanied by the Dateline crew, in
12 On appeal, plaintiffs do not premise their defamation
claim on the portion of statement (H) indicating that Kennedy
believes that his driving needs no scrutiny.
-44-
Utah and Wyoming. In a recorded interview, however, Kennedy
engaged in this dialogue with Francis:
Francis: You’ve just come all the way across the
country and you haven’t been stopped once. What’s
your analysis of that?
Kennedy: Well it’s the first time . . . Not usually
stopped and checked on paperwork [?] but usually
there’s a scale open, but this time I came all the way
across with not one scale open.
Kennedy also conceded at trial that his truck was not weighed
and his logbooks were not inspected at any point in the trip.
In view of the above, it is difficult to fault
defendants for stating that Kennedy “escaped any scrutiny.” It
is, moreover, scarcely a statement that disparages plaintiffs.
Whether all the inspection stations were closed so as to permit
Kennedy to evade scrutiny was not under plaintiffs’ control and
does not reflect on them in a negative way. Hence, it fails to
satisfy the requirement under Maine law that it “tend . . . to
harm the reputation of another [so] as to lower him in the
estimation of the community or to deter third persons from
associating or dealing with him." Bakal, 583 A.2d at 1029; see
also McCullough, 691 A.2d at 1204 (no defamation liability where
challenged statement was no more damaging to plaintiff’s
reputation than the truth would have been). (L) "Kennedy
heads out to discover his fate. If they
check his fuel and toll receipts carefully, they'll
know he doctored his logbook. He'll be put off the
road for a day or two and be late with his
perishable load to Boston. Kennedy and his company
-45-
will lose money, and maybe a customer." [later]
"Kennedy is about to go through the first open
inspection station so far. Like other truckers, he's
falsified his legal logbook . . . ."
The video footage accompanying this voice-over showed
Kennedy’s truck approach what might have appeared to viewers to
be an inspection station.13 Plaintiffs contend, however, that
the footage depicted a weigh station, not an inspection station.
Moreover, they assert, at this point in the trip, Kennedy’s fuel
receipts were in accordance with his logbook and there had not
yet been any tolls.
This visual deception does not, we think, rise to the
level of defamation. The fact that the video footage was from
a different portion of the trip and showed a weigh station,
while perhaps contrived, is not a falsification material to
plaintiffs’ reputations. Showing footage that accurately
depicted an inspection station would not, in these
circumstances, have had any materially different effect on a
reasonable viewer’s perception of Kennedy.
To the extent that plaintiffs also contend that the
voice-over was defamatory, they have not borne their burden of
13 The footage shows a sign that reads “WEIGH STATION.”
The same signage, however, illustrates the Pennsylvania
inspection station referenced in statement (N), discussed infra;
plaintiffs do not contend that the Pennsylvania station was also
a weigh station.
-46-
proof on the essential elements. As discussed supra, the
portions of statement (L) relating to the lack of open
inspection stations are not harmful to plaintiffs’ reputations.
Furthermore, the references to Kennedy’s falsification of his
logbook were supported, as discussed supra. As to the potential
consequences for plaintiffs of an inspection, defendants
reasonably relied on Kennedy’s own statements, including the
following exchange immediately after passing an inspection
station in Iowa that closed just before Kennedy arrived:
Handel: So you were worried. You were really
worried.
Kennedy: Yeah, 'cause it's just a hassle. You
know, it's just -- they can shut you down there
if they want to. I mean, they can -- and then
I'm -- I've lost eight hours right there if I'm
shut down.
When asked about these statements at trial, Kennedy responded,
"I don't know what I meant." Plaintiffs offer no evidence to
suggest that defendants had any reason to doubt the accuracy of
Kennedy’s statements before the broadcast. In the absence of
defendants’ negligence, statement (L) does not support the
defamation verdict.
(N) "Finally, in Pennsylvania, an open inspection
station. If Kennedy is caught and grounded now,
the whole run will be a disaster. Kennedy and his
company will lose money. He drives in cautiously.
The inspector is nowhere to be seen, and so Kennedy
heads right out the other side."
-47-
Plaintiffs do not challenge the pictorial accuracy of
the footage accompanying statement (N). Insofar as this
statement speaks of the risks inherent in being “caught and
grounded now,” and the absence of an inspector, it is not much
different than statement (L), hence was not defamatory for
reasons already discussed supra.
Defamation liability cannot rest, moreover, upon the
assertion “and so Kennedy heads right out the other side."
True, viewers could infer from this portion of statement (N)
that Kennedy was relieved not to have to undergo an inspection.
Defendants, however, had ample basis from Kennedy’s admissions
described supra to conclude that he was relieved. A reasonable
viewer would not conclude that it was unlawful or wrong for
Kennedy to head “right out the other side." The inspector was
absent, "and so" Kennedy drove away. The most that can be said
is that, like much reporting of this type, the language has an
ominous tone, perhaps suggesting guilt for unknown reasons.
Here the only guilty party was the absent inspector, who was not
a plaintiff. Statement (N) was not defamatory.
E. Subsequent illegal trip: Category 4
The final statement at issue concerns Ray’s assignment
of an additional coast-to-coast run to Kennedy shortly after the
trip with Dateline:
-48-
(R) "Just forty-eight hours after getting home, Peter
Kennedy
was ordered illegally without rest to drive back
out west."
Statement (R) appears reasonably based on a written
statement by Kennedy dated December 19, 1994:
I was out of hours, so Ray told me to take a
few days off, but Saturday (2 days later) he
called me and said "do me a favor. Can you
leave Sunday for four drops . . . . I said
yeah, I guess I can start a new log book to do
this trip as I have no hours. I could not
believe they would send me back out knowing
that I had no hours left to drive.
Plaintiffs contend that this statement was controverted
by Kennedy’s trial testimony that he was not “ordered” to go on
the run, but rather agreed to go as a favor to Ray. They also
maintain that the trip was legal in that Kennedy had enough
hours under the pertinent regulations and that he had sufficient
rest in between the trips. Plaintiffs point to no persuasive
evidence, however, that defendants’ reliance on his December
19, 1994, statement was unreasonable.14
14 That the document was delivered by Kennedy’s ex-
girlfriend rather than Kennedy himself did not so undermine the
veracity of the statement as to make it unreasonable for
defendants to rely upon it. Plaintiffs’ argument that
defendants should not have relied upon Kennedy’s written
statement because they had “agreed to keep information ‘off the
record’” also is without merit. Any such agreement concerned
Kennedy’s drug test results, not whether Ray sent Kennedy out on
another run illegally.
-49-
Kennedy also testified that there were three full days
between when he arrived home from the Dateline run and when he
actually departed on the next trip. However, statement (R) does
not convey that Kennedy actually departed on another trip forty-
eight hours after arriving home, only that he was “ordered” to
go; accordingly, this portion of the statement was not
materially false, as plaintiffs contend.
In sum, none of the statements sent to the jury can
support a finding of defamation under standards consistent with
the federal constitution. We reverse the judgment in favor of
plaintiffs on their defamation claim. Because there is no
surviving portion of the defamation claim to remand to the
district court, there is no need to address the issue raised by
plaintiffs on cross-appeal, namely the required degree of proof
as to the element of falsity.15
VI. MISREPRESENTATION
Ray was awarded damages for negligent and fraudulent
misrepresentation under Maine common law. His misrepresentation
15 Plaintiffs contend in their cross-appeal that the
district court erroneously instructed the jury that they must
find that plaintiffs proved falsity by clear and convincing
evidence; rather, they contend, the correct standard requires
only a preponderance of the evidence. As the instruction on
degree of proof does not change the result of our independent
review, we see no need to reach this question.
-50-
claims were premised on defendants’ statements to him that the
contemplated Dateline program in which he was being asked to
participate (1) would portray the trucking industry in a
positive light; and (2) would not include PATT (the
organization, Parents Against Tired Truckers, formed after fatal
truck accidents to force greater regulatory compliance).16 The
program, in fact, focused on how some truck drivers falsified
logs, drove longer hours than regulations allowed, and used
drugs. Moreover, it showed PATT members, some in footage filmed
before defendants’ alleged assurances, criticizing trucking and
enforcement practices and displaying grief over the loss of
loved ones in accidents caused by fatigued truck drivers.
Defendants contend that the misrepresentations Ray
alleges fall short of Maine common law requirements in that (1)
they were not statements of present fact; (2) they were not
sufficiently specific; and (3) they were not the proximate cause
of Ray’s harm.17 They also maintain that the misrepresentation
16 The district court did not permit Kennedy to submit any
misrepresentation claims to the jury, on the ground that he had
shown no evidence of pecuniary harm, as required by Maine law.
Kennedy contests this ruling on cross-appeal, arguing that the
jury should be allowed to “assess whether any intangible
commercial loss was suffered.” He does not cite any authority
supporting this argument, however, and this court lacks
authority to create the new Maine law rule he proposes.
17 Defendants make no distinctions between fraudulent and
negligent misrepresentation for the purpose of these arguments.
-51-
claims are barred under First Amendment criteria. We consider
these issues in turn, concluding that the representation to
portray the trucking industry in a positive light was too vague
to be actionable under Maine common law, but that the alleged
promise to exclude PATT from the program was actionable under
Maine law and passes muster under First Amendment criteria.
A. Future promises
Traditionally, an action for deceit could be brought
under Maine law only if the challenged misrepresentation was of
past or existing fact, not just of opinion or of promises for
future performance. See Wildes v. Pens Unlimited Co., 389 A.2d
837, 840 (Me. 1978). Even “a preconceived intention not to
perform” was said to be incapable of turning a breach of a
promise not to do something in the future into an action for
deceit. Shine v. Dodge, 157 A. 318, 319 (Me. 1931).
In the Wildes case, however, the Maine Supreme Judicial
Court pointed to a sentence in Shine, supra, as broadening the
blanket rule. Allowing a finding of deceit to be based on a
disingenuous promise of employment, the Wildes court quoted
Shine:
The relationship of the parties or the
opportunity afforded for investigation and
the reliance, which one is thereby justified
in placing on the statement of the other,
may transform into an averment of fact that
-52-
which under ordinary circumstances would be
merely an expression of opinion.
389 A.2d at 840 (quoting Shine, 157 A. at 318). The court went
on to state:
Plaintiff herein was clearly at the mercy of
the defendant insofar as any representations
made regarding such areas as, among others,
employment opportunities and remuneration.
We find that given the circumstances under
which plaintiff was obliged to make his
decisions, the representations made by Mr.
Forde could well have been justifiably
understood as being of fact and not mere
opinion.
Id. at 840.
While involving an employment relationship, the holding
in Wildes was not expressly limited to that setting. Nor was
the employment relationship noted as determinative in the later
case of Boivin v. Jones & Vining, Inc., 578 A.2d 187, 188-89
(Me. 1990). There, an assurance of continued employment was
also upheld as a basis for a deceit action, notwithstanding the
argument that the promise was unenforceable as being for future
performance. See id. at 188. As in Wildes, the Boivin court
relied on the above-quoted language from Shine. However, it
took the additional step of quoting, without comment, from
section 525 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which sets
forth a theory of liability that includes misrepresentations of
opinion and intention as well as of fact:
-53-
One who fraudulently makes a
misrepresentation of fact, opinion,
intention or law for the purpose of inducing
another to act or to refrain from action in
reliance upon it, is subject to liability to
the other in deceit for pecuniary loss
caused to him by his justifiable reliance
upon the misrepresentation.
Boivin, 578 A.2d at 189 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts
§ 525 (emphasis supplied)). We therefore conclude that in
appropriate circumstances, promises concerning future
performance may be sufficiently akin to averments of fact as to
be actionable under Maine misrepresentation law. It is also
possible, but unclear, that Maine will someday move to adopt
section 525 in toto. Looking first at defendants’ alleged
promise not to include PATT in the Dateline program, we believe
this to be a misrepresentation made in circumstances that a
Maine court today would find actionable. Defendants’ statements
concerning PATT can reasonably be considered “specific facts”
about aspects of the program within defendants’ exclusive
control upon which Ray reasonably could have relied. See Schott
Motorcycle Supply, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.,
976 F.2d 58, 65 (1st Cir. 1992). Ray was not in position to know
about, investigate or influence defendants’ inclusion of PATT in
the program; he was “at the mercy of the defendant[s]” with
regard to their representations. Wildes, 389 A.2d at 840.
Indeed, a jury could reasonably find on the present record that
-54-
defendants deliberately concealed from Ray, at the time they
told him that PATT would not be included, the fact that they had
already filmed and recorded taped comments highly critical of
truckers from PATT’s co-founders, the Izer family, in
preparation for use in the projected program. Parts of this
footage were later included, to powerful effect, in the
broadcast program.18 The program therefore was already a work in
progress when the misrepresentation was made. A promise not to
include PATT and the concealment of the prior PATT filming can
be regarded under the rationale of Wildes and Boivin as
pertaining to existing “facts” rather than mere opinions or
projections. Accordingly, we do not think the fact that
defendants’ alleged representation to exclude PATT also
pertained to a time in the future (i.e. when the completed
program would be aired) prevents it from being actionable as a
misrepresentation of fact under recent Maine law.
18 The Dateline show interspersed the Izers’ emotional
statements concerning their son’s death with Kennedy’s comments
indicating that he ignored relevant regulations. For example,
Ms. Izer’s statement that had the trucker who killed their son
gotten enough sleep, “our lives wouldn’t be ruined . . . Jeffrey
and his friends would be here,” was immediately followed by
footage of Kennedy filling out his logbook while singing and
saying “Hey, I have to do what I have to do.” (Dateline also
juxtaposed Kennedy’s comments with statements by Bruce Dubrow,
a proponent of regulatory reform whose son was killed when a
truck driver fell asleep behind the wheel. The program did not
make clear whether Dubrow was a member of PATT.)
-55-
The situation is, however, much less clear when we turn
to the alleged assurance to present the trucking industry in a
“positive” light. To be sure, that promise also pertained to
matters within defendants’ control as to which plaintiffs had
little opportunity for investigation, but it did not pertain to
a concrete, easily ascertainable fact (such as the fact of
whether or not PATT was included in the program). Rather, it
set forth a vague standard, “positive,” to which defendants’
filmed portrayal of the trucking industry was supposed to
adhere. In the next section, we conclude that such a vague
future criterion, relative to a news broadcast about a matter of
public concern, is insufficient under Maine law to support an
action in misrepresentation.
B. Lack of specificity
As noted supra, Wildes and related state precedent
indicate that the Maine courts today will treat as actionable
promises of future performance that are closely akin to
representations of existing fact. We doubt, however, that
defendants’ alleged promises to show plaintiffs and fellow
truckers in a “positive” light fit into this category.
An initial difficulty is whether the promise to provide
“positive” coverage was unconditional or whether it should be
interpreted as containing an implied condition that plaintiffs’
-56-
own conduct, while driving cross-country under defendants’
scrutiny, must at least be consistent with such favorable
treatment. Dateline is, after all, a news program; reporters do
not normally overlook newsworthy conduct, and it is hard to
imagine that the parties expected positive coverage no matter
how badly plaintiffs later behaved. Here, subsequent to the
alleged promise, Kennedy admitted on camera to various
regulatory violations and to taking illegal drugs. Should the
alleged promise be construed to require defendants to ignore
this evidence of misconduct and to present plaintiffs in all
respects favorably? If we read the promise to contain an
implied condition that plaintiffs behave appropriately in order
to receive positive coverage, then it is hard to see that
defendants can be held liable for misrepresentation. Even had
the promise been initially disingenuous, in that defendants were
“out to get” plaintiffs all along, Kennedy’s voluntary breach of
the implied condition entitled defendants to provide truthful
coverage that was less than positive. In any event, the
difficulty of construing the promise in light of subsequent
events makes it a questionable basis for recovery under Maine’s
evolving law of deceit, unlike the clear-cut representation not
to include PATT in the program. See Wildes, 389 A.2d at 840.
-57-
The promise to provide positive coverage might, indeed,
be viewed as more akin to “puffing” or “trade talk,” which we
held in Schott would not support recovery in fraud. 976 F.2d at
65. We determined in Schott that the plaintiff franchisee could
not have reasonably relied on a defendant franchiser’s
statements that new products would increase sales in the coming
years and that it would continue to be committed to the
motorcycle market. See id. We thought that the plaintiff
“could not have justifiably understood the alleged
misrepresentations to be assurances as to specific facts, rather
than mere opinion.” Id.
The Seventh Circuit, in Desnick v. Am. Broad. Cos.,
Inc., 44 F.3d 1345 (7th Cir. 1995), likened journalists’ promises
of this nature to “puffery”:
Investigative journalists well known for
ruthlessness promise to wear kid gloves.
They break their promise, as any person of
normal sophistication would expect. If that
is ‘fraud,’ it is the kind against which
potential victims can easily arm themselves
by maintaining a minimum of skepticism about
journalistic goals and methods.
Id. at 1354. There, an ophthalmic clinic and two of its
surgeons sued a television network and others involved in the
broadcast of a report regarding certain medical practices at the
clinic. See id. at 1347. Their fraud claim was premised on
defendants’ representations that the report would be “balanced”
-58-
and would not involve “ambush” interviews or undercover
surveillance. Id. at 1348. The court went so far as to suggest
that no reasonable person could rely on such promises. See id.
at 1354. Similarly, a Maine court might think that defendants’
“positive” assurances were simply too vague and laconic to
inspire, on the part of a reasonable person, the reliance
necessary for a misrepresentation claim.
There is a further reason for believing that a Maine
court would reject the promise to provide positive coverage as
the basis for a misrepresentation claim. Were the Maine court
to rule that this promise was sufficiently factual, it would
then have to face the difficult issue of whether it would be
constitutional to use so vague a yardstick in a
misrepresentation action founded on speech relating to matters
of public concern. State courts, like their federal
counterparts, normally seek to avoid construing common law rules
so as to create serious constitutional problems. See Watters v.
TSR, Inc., 904 F.2d 378, 383 (6th Cir. 1990) (state court would
avoid applying its common law “in a way that would bring the
constitutional problems to the fore”). Cf. Edward J. DeBartolo
Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 485
U.S. 568, 575 (1988) (court must adopt reasonable alternative
-59-
interpretation of statute when necessary to avoid serious
constitutional problems).
The constitutional prohibition of vagueness within the
realm of defamation is well established. See Levinsky’s, 127
F.3d at 129-30 (statement that plaintiff store was “trashy” too
vague to support finding of defamation). We noted in Levinsky’s
that under the First Amendment, a statement cannot be defamatory
unless it can be reasonably understood as having an “objectively
verifiable” meaning: “[t]he vaguer a term, or the more meanings
it reasonably can convey, the less likely it is to be
actionable.” Id. at 129.
Similar requirements of objectivity and specificity
have been applied to non-defamation claims that implicate the
First Amendment. In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46,
55 (1988), the Supreme Court acknowledged the dangers of
vagueness in holding that a jury should not be permitted to
apply a standard of “outrageousness” to plaintiff’s claim of
intentional infliction of emotional distress. 485 U.S. at 55.
The Court held that that standard possessed an “inherent
subjectiveness” that impermissibly allowed a jury to impose
liability based on personal beliefs. Id. Statements challenged
as vague also have been given heightened scrutiny under the
First Amendment in a variety of other contexts. See, e.g.,
-60-
Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610,
620 (1976) (stating, in considering constitutionality of
municipality’s canvassing and solicitation ordinance, that
“[t]he general test of vagueness applies with particular force
in review of laws dealing with speech”); Kusek v. Family Circle,
Inc., 894 F. Supp. 522, 528 (D. Mass. 1995) (in cookbook
author’s trademark infringement claim against publisher, court
was “reluctant to enforce vague, oral contracts where
Defendant's First Amendment rights might be affected”).
Defendants point out that whether the resultant program
in a given case was sufficiently “positive” might often be
incapable of being proven or disproven sufficient for First
Amendment purposes. How much criticism is permissible before
the program would lose its positive character? Would the
revelation of a single regulatory violation on Kennedy’s part
suffice to establish misrepresentation? And, as discussed
above, the promise of positive coverage may have had an implied
condition of good conduct that Kennedy breached when he admitted
to wrongdoing during the Dateline trip. All of these actual or
potential problems suggest that the promise to provide positive
coverage could be too contingent to satisfy constitutional
norms.
-61-
We conclude that a Maine court would at least worry
that premising a finding of misrepresentation on such a vague
term would place too great a burden on speech protected by the
state and federal constitutions.19 Without declaring ourselves
one way or the other on the constitutional issue, we believe
that the Maine court would not choose to include the positive
coverage assurance within its traditional common law rule merely
to arrive in these uncharted constitutional waters.20
We conclude, therefore, that an action in
misrepresentation under Maine law did not lie in these
circumstances for defendants’ alleged promise to provide
“positive” coverage. It was, therefore, error to submit this
representation to the jury as a potential basis for liability.
C. Proximate causation and damages
We continue our analysis of Ray’s misrepresentation
claims, now limited to defendants’ promise to exclude PATT from
19 Article 1, Section 4 of the Maine Constitution is
similar to the First Amendment of the federal constitution.
20 The constitutional issue might be further influenced
in particular cases by whether the alleged misrepresentation
affected purely private speech or speech touching upon matters
of public concern. See Levinsky’s, 127 F.3d at 128 n.4. Here
the misrepresentation fell into the latter category. A
businessperson’s broken promise, for example, to promote
another’s product line in a “positive” way might -- in the
absence of protected public interest in the speech and in the
narrower commercial context -- be deemed sufficiently definite
to be actionable. We venture no opinion on this.
-62-
the program. Defendants argue that such alleged
misrepresentations did not proximately cause Ray’s pecuniary
harm calculated from the business he lost as a result of the
program. Rather, defendants insist, Kennedy’s later taped
statements about driving too many hours, falsifying his logbook,
and other wrongdoing were the true causes of any harm to Ray’s
business.
Under either a fraudulent or negligent
misrepresentation theory, plaintiffs may recover for pecuniary
harm caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon an
actionable representation. See McCarthy v. U.S.I. Corp., 678
A.2d 48, 53 (Me. 1996); Chapman v. Rideout, 568 A.2d 829, 830
(Me. 1990). To be considered a proximate cause of a plaintiff’s
injury, the representation must be a “substantial factor” in
bringing about the harm.21 See Wheeler v. White, 714 A.2d 125,
127-28 (Me. 1998). Moreover, the injury must have been a
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the representation. See
id. at 128; see also Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 548A.
21 In the absence of case law explicitly addressing
causation requirements in the context of misrepresentation, we
apply general tort principles consistent with the Restatement
(Second) of Torts §§ 525-549 (1977). See Springer v. Seaman,
658 F. Supp. 1502, 1508-09 & n.4 (D. Me. 1987), rev’d in part on
other grounds, 821 F.2d 871 (1st Cir. 1987).
-63-
Proximate cause is generally a question of fact for the jury.
See Webb v. Haas, 728 A.2d 1261, 1267 (Me. 1999).
The chain of causation can be interrupted by an
intervening cause, which forecloses a defendant’s liability.
See Ames v. Dipietro-Kay Corp., 617 A.2d 559, 561 (Me. 1992).
An intervening cause, under Maine law, is “a new and independent
cause, which is neither anticipated nor reasonably foreseeable”
by the defendant; it must “operate independently” of the
defendant’s tortious conduct. Springer, 658 F. Supp. at 1508
(quoting Johnson v. Dubois, 256 A.2d 733, 735 (Me. 1969)).
We must determine, therefore, (1) whether defendants’
alleged misrepresentations as to PATT could be found to be a
proximate and efficient cause of Ray’s business losses, by
inducing plaintiffs’ participation in the show; and (2) if so,
whether Kennedy’s incriminating statements to defendants could
have constituted an intervening cause of the injury so as to
relieve Dateline of liability. As explained below, we conclude
that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably
find that defendants’ alleged misrepresentations were a
substantial factor in inducing Ray to allow defendants to film
Kennedy on his cross-country trip, and that some portion of the
ensuing harm to Ray’s business was foreseeable to defendants.
Ray’s recovery is limited, however, to those damages
-64-
specifically caused by the inclusion of PATT in the program; he
may not recover generally for harm flowing from the entirety of
the broadcast. Moreover, we reject defendants’ intervening
cause argument, concluding that a reasonable jury could
determine that Kennedy’s wrongdoing was itself foreseeable to
defendants.
First, Ray has adduced sufficient evidence of his
reliance on defendants’ representations as to PATT, permitting
a reasonable finding that the representations were a substantial
factor in bringing about his harm. That the program would not
have featured plaintiffs but for defendants’ promises concerning
PATT is supported by Ray and Kelly Veilleux’s testimony that
they told Dateline that they would not agree to participate in
the show if PATT was involved. Moreover, the conversations
between defendants and Kennedy around the time of the alleged
misrepresentations indicate that defendants were aware of the
possibility, if not a likelihood, that Kennedy would violate
regulations on the trip with Dateline.22 Evidence that PATT
members had already been filmed, and that titles of Handel and
22 Kennedy testified that before Ray agreed to participate
in the program, Kennedy told Handel that he “occasionally” made
minor falsifications to his logbook. Moreover, Dateline
associate producer Tracy Vail testified that, before the
filming, Kennedy told her that in the course of a typical coast-
to-coast run, he would exceed the permissible number of driving
hours.
-65-
Vail’s proposed scripts for the program referred to “deadly” or
“asleep at the wheel” truckers, further supports the conclusion
that Dateline planned in advance the unflattering juxtaposition
of PATT with plaintiffs’ trucking practices. While much
depended on how matters played out -- whether in fact Kennedy
broke the law and engaged in conduct supporting Dateline’s
themes of tired and dangerous truckers -- a jury could
reasonably find that defendants set up Ray as a potential
villain of the piece, and certainly were well aware that the
surreptitious insertion of PATT’s representatives into the
program could only sharpen that image, the PATT spokespersons
being highly critical of truckers. It was therefore foreseeable
that, after unflattering exposure on national television,
coupled with PATT’s aired criticism, Ray might suffer pecuniary
loss as his customers took their business elsewhere.
This does not, however, end our causation analysis.
Ray must prove not only that defendants’ representations as to
PATT caused plaintiffs to participate in the program, but that
those representations – not just the program itself -- caused
his pecuniary loss. See Stewart v. Winter, 174 A. 456, 457 (Me.
1934) (distinguishing between harm caused by reliance on
representation and harm flowing from related promise). Under
Maine law, the proper measure of damages for a misrepresentation
-66-
claim is plaintiff’s lost bargain. See Wildes, 389 A.2d at 841;
Jourdain v. Dineen, 527 A.2d 1304, 1307 (Me. 1987); Shine, 157
A. at 319. Here, Ray must establish that his pecuniary loss was
caused by the difference between the broadcast that was
represented (which excluded PATT) and the broadcast that was
delivered (which included PATT). Accordingly, we limit Ray’s
recovery to those damages specifically and directly caused by
the program’s inclusion of PATT; he may not recover generally
for all harm flowing from the entire broadcast. While we
recognize that this may be difficult for Ray to prove, we will
allow him the opportunity to do so upon remand, insofar as his
damages are explicitly limited to pecuniary harm flowing from
the portions of the broadcast featuring PATT.
Defendants argue that their representations concerning
the content of the broadcast were simply too remote from Ray's
harm to be its proximate cause, and that Kennedy himself was the
intervening cause of the harm. They rely upon findings of
inadequate causation in district court cases in which
investigative journalists misrepresented their identities in
order to gain access to behind-the-scenes information about
defendants’ business operations, then broadcast truthful reports
about the wrongdoings they discovered. See, e.g., Medical
Laboratory Management Consultants v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc., 30
-67-
F. Supp.2d 1182 (D. Ariz. 1998); Food Lion, Inc. v. Capitol
Cities/ABC, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 956 (M.D.N.C. 1997), rev’d on
other grounds, 194 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1999). In those cases, the
district courts concluded that the reporters’ misrepresentations
designed to gain access did not proximately cause whatever
damages flowed from the broadcast of the facts the reporters
uncovered. Rather, any harm resulted from the plaintiffs’ own
wrongful practices, as revealed to the public on videotape. See
Medical Laboratory, 30 F. Supp.2d at 1199; Food Lion, 964 F.
Supp. at 962-63. In Food Lion, the district court went on to
hold that even if the defendants could have foreseen the harm to
the plaintiff at the time of their fraudulent statements, the
acts of Food Lion employees “interrupted any causal connection”
between defendants' fraud and the ultimate loss of profits and
sales. Food Lion, 964 F. Supp. at 963. (The Fourth Circuit, in
its recent review of the district court’s decision, decided on
grounds other than proximate cause. Food Lion, 194 F.3d at
522.)
Even if we were inclined to follow these district court
decisions on their own facts, a question we need not answer,
their facts were insufficiently apposite to the instant case.
In Medical Laboratory and Food Lion, the alleged
misrepresentations did not pertain to the content of the
-68-
subsequent broadcasts, and the broadcasts themselves did not
violate any promises. See 30 F. Supp.2d at 1198-99; 964 F.
Supp. at 958-59.23 In this case, the alleged representations did
not serve to disguise defendants’ identity, but rather
misrepresented the persons and viewpoints to be included in the
report. Defendants’ contention of surprise that the Dateline
“investigation” revealed unflattering information about Kennedy
is significantly less plausible given the evidence of Dateline’s
knowledge about Kennedy's driving practices around the time of
the misrepresentations, as well as the evidence that defendants
intended from the beginning to portray the sort of violations
Kennedy came to exemplify. Moreover, unlike the general
broadcast damages sought in Food Lion and Medical Laboratory,
Ray will not be permitted to recover for harm flowing from the
entirety of the report. Hence, the nexus between defendants’
representations concerning PATT and Ray’s alleged harm is
significantly closer than the nexus between representations as
23 Defendants also cite Desnick, 44 F.3d 1345, in support
of their argument. The factual circumstances of Desnick are
closer to the instant case, in that the plaintiff’s fraud claim
was premised in part on representations that a television
tabloid report would be “balanced.” 44 F.3d at 1348. However,
the Desnick decision rested chiefly on the plaintiff’s failure
to satisfy applicable state law, which required a “scheme” to
defraud. See id. at 1354-55. To the extent that the opinion
addressed causation at all, the court’s analysis rested on
factual circumstances not present here. See id.
-69-
to reporters’ identities and the broadcast damages sought in
those cases.
D. First Amendment
Having determined that Ray would be entitled to recover
pecuniary damages on his misrepresentation claims under Maine
law insofar as the claims are premised on the promise to exclude
PATT, we next consider whether the operation of the First
Amendment changes this outcome. Defendants argue that the First
Amendment’s protection of truthful speech on issues of public
concern, protection of the editing function of the press, and
prohibition of regulating speech based on vague and subjective
criteria operate collectively to bar Ray’s claims. Furthermore,
they contend, newsgathering will be impermissibly inhibited if
every disgruntled subject of a news story can obtain a trial on
the basis of a “swearing contest” as to whether the journalist
made promises about the content of the story.
The Supreme Court has not yet addressed the relevant
constitutional implications of a common law misrepresentation
action against a media defendant. Twice in recent years,
however, the Court has considered whether the First Amendment
protects the media from liability under other common law
theories, with divergent results. See id.; Cohen v. Cowles
Media Co., 501 U.S. 663 (1991).
-70-
In Hustler, Reverend Jerry Falwell brought claims
against a magazine, under theories of libel and intentional
infliction of emotional distress, that arose from publication of
an advertisement parody. See 485 U.S. at 48-49. The jury
rejected the libel claim, but awarded compensatory and punitive
damages for emotional distress. See id. at 49. The Court held
that, in order to protect the “free flow of ideas and opinions
on matters of public interest and concern,” the First Amendment
permits public figures to recover damages for emotional distress
only where they can show “actual malice,” as is required in
defamation claims. Id. at 56. Plaintiffs should not be
permitted to “end-run” around the First Amendment by seeking
emotional distress damages under the lower state law standards
of proof. See id.
Several years later, in Cohen, 501 U.S. 663, the
Supreme Court addressed the First Amendment implications of a
promissory estoppel claim based on an assurance of
confidentiality. The plaintiff, who was affiliated with a party
in a gubernatorial campaign, gave information about another
party’s candidate to the defendant publisher’s newspapers in
return for a promise of confidentiality. See id. at 665. After
the newspapers breached this promise and published his identity,
Cohen’s employer fired him. See id. at 666.
-71-
The Court concluded that the First Amendment did not
preclude plaintiff’s recovery of damages under a promissory
estoppel theory. See id. at 669. It referenced the “well-
established line of decisions” holding that the First Amendment
is not offended by the operation of a generally applicable law
that, when enforced against the press, has merely an incidental
effect on its ability to gather and report the news. Id. The
Court distinguished Hustler on the ground that unlike Falwell,
Cohen was not attempting to use the promissory estoppel cause of
action “to avoid the strict requirements for establishing a
libel or defamation claim,” and was not seeking damages for
injury to his reputation or his state of mind. Id. at 671.
Cohen was allowed to recover economic damages associated with
the loss of his job under normal state law standards of proof,
since these damages did not “end-run” around the First Amendment
by duplicating defamation damages. See id.
These two cases provide opposing points of reference
from which to evaluate Ray’s misrepresentation claims. From
them, and from subsequent lower court decisions, several
principles emerge.
First, the First Amendment is concerned with speech
itself, not the tone or tastefulness of the journalism that
disseminates it. See Desnick, 44 F.3d at 1355 (tabloid
-72-
television journalism entitled to First Amendment safeguards
similar to other reportage); see also Hustler, 485 U.S. at 55
(noting impossibility of “laying down a principled standard to
separate” a distasteful advertising parody, which itself
contributed little to public discourse, from political cartoons
or caricatures that enjoy First Amendment protection).
Second, the Supreme Court “has long recognized that not
all speech is of equal First Amendment importance.” Id. at 56
(quoting Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. 472
U.S. 749, 758 (1985)). Speech about matters of public concern
is particularly entitled to strong constitutional safeguards.
See id. at 50. Truthful information is, of course, more
deserving of protection than false information.24 See id. at 52.
Third, even when the information being disseminated is
truthful, the press does not enjoy general immunity from tort
liability. See Cohen, 501 U.S. at 669-70. Where a journalist
has acquired information through unlawful means, such as by
making an actionable false promise, the First Amendment
protection of the publication of that information may be
24 The First Amendment requires some leeway for
inadvertent false statements of fact, however, as they as
“nevertheless inevitable in free debate.” Hustler, 485 U.S. at
52 (quoting Gertz, 418 U.S. at 329). The necessary “breathing
space” for freedom of expression is provided by the
constitutional rule requiring that false statements be made with
the requisite fault to support a defamation claim. Id.
-73-
diminished. See id. at 671; see also Desnick, 44 F.3d at 1355.
Hence, the enforcement against the press of generally applicable
laws is “not subject to stricter scrutiny than would be applied
to enforcement against other persons or organizations.” Cohen,
501 U.S. at 670.
Fourth, the status of the plaintiff is of
constitutional significance. See Hustler, 485 U.S. at 51. Less
First Amendment protection is warranted where the plaintiff is
a public figure, as such individuals must reasonably anticipate
criticism, including “vehement, caustic, and sometimes
unpleasantly sharp attacks.” Id. (quoting New York Times, 376
U.S. at 270).
Fifth, the type of damages sought bears on the
necessity of constitutional safeguards. In Hustler, the
plaintiff sought emotional distress damages, which (along with
reputational damages) are properly compensable in defamation
actions, and are thus subject to the same “constitutional libel
standards.” Cohen, 501 U.S. at 671. The plaintiff in Cohen,
however, sought only economic damages connected to the loss of
his job, which had resulted from the defendant’s breach of its
promise of confidentiality. See id. at 666. The Cohen Court,
in distinguishing its holding from Hustler, focused on the fact
that Cohen did not seek damages for injury to his reputation or
-74-
his state of mind. Id. at 671. It thus concluded that Cohen
could recover on his common law claim without having to
additionally prove actual malice, unlike the plaintiff in
Hustler. See id.
The importance of this factor was recently emphasized
by the Fourth Circuit in Food Lion, 194 F.3d at 505. There, the
plaintiff had conceded that it could not quantify its actual
damages with regard to its common law claims of breach of
loyalty and trespass. See id. at 515 n.3. It thus sought
reputational damages instead, but did not do so via a defamation
claim, because it could not prove actual malice. See id. at
522. The Fourth Circuit held that this attempt to recover
“defamation-type” damages without satisfying the stricter First
Amendment standards of a defamation claim was barred by Hustler.
Id.
On balance, the above factors disfavor a conclusion
that Ray’s recovery of pecuniary, not reputational, damages for
an actionable misrepresentation about PATT’s appearance in the
broadcast violates the First Amendment. To be sure, some of the
factors favor defendants: the Dateline report involved a matter
of serious public concern, and the statements in the broadcast
were, as we have already discussed, substantially true (or, at
least, non-negligent when made on the basis of then-existing
-75-
information). Still, misrepresentation under Maine common law
is a cause of general applicability. Applying it to journalists
subjects them to the same consequences as all others. See
Cohen, 501 U.S. at 670. If the plaintiffs’ evidence is
believed, the defendants did not gather information from
plaintiffs “lawfully,” but rather secured plaintiffs’
cooperation by withholding the fact of their prior PATT
interviews and denying, untruthfully, that PATT would be in the
show. See id. at 670; Desnick, 44 F.3d at 1355.25 These factual
misrepresentations, if made, were highly material: if PATT were
included, Ray did not wish to participate, as he realized that
the PATT representatives were outspokenly unfriendly to trucking
interests. Moreover, plaintiffs were not public officials or
figures inured to the rough-and-tumble of public discourse, and
hence deserved greater protection. Compare Hustler, 485 U.S. at
51.
25 The court in Food Lion pointed out that in Hustler, the
underlying act of intentional infliction of emotional distress
was unlawful, yet that did not diminish First Amendment
protections. See 194 F.3d at 523-24. The Hustler Court
acknowledged, however, that “the law does not regard the intent
to inflict emotional distress as one which should receive much
solicitude.” 485 U.S. at 53. The interest in protecting
victims of that underlying tort, as opposed to the torts of
misrepresentation (in Desnick and this case) and promissory
estoppel (in Cohen), might be more easily outweighed by the
First Amendment.
-76-
Furthermore, the district court carefully distinguished
between the different types of damages potentially available
under this cause of action. The court permitted the jury to
award Ray damages only for his pecuniary loss (primarily the
loss of trucking customers) flowing from the misrepresentations,
not reputational or emotional distress damages. Unlike Hustler
and Food Lion, this is not a case where Ray could avoid the
strict requirements of a defamation claim by seeking
“defamation-type” damages under an easier common law standard.
See Cohen, 501 U.S. at 671; Food Lion, 194 F.3d at 523.
Moreover, as discussed supra, we are further limiting Ray’s
damages to preclude recovery based upon the general tone of the
broadcast; he may obtain damages only if he can prove pecuniary
losses specifically resulting from the inclusion of PATT in the
program. Cf. Cohen, 501 U.S. at 671.
Defendants request that we adopt a rule requiring
“independent evidence” in every case in which a news source
alleges that a journalist breached a promise as to the content
of a story. We recognize the danger that newsgathering might be
inhibited by forcing journalists to frequently litigate
disputes concerning their purported representations to sources.
An independent evidence rule would, however, grant journalists
a greater license to lie than is enjoyed by other citizens.
-77-
Defendants’ proposed rule would exceed any protection of
newsgathering that the Supreme Court has yet fashioned, and
would be more appropriately developed at that level, if at all.
Moreover, since both Ray and Kelly Veilleux testified that
defendants had assured them that PATT would not be part of the
report, such a rule, to apply here, would have to reject
evidence from multiple witnesses so long as they were parties.
We conclude that allowing recovery of damages for
common law misrepresentation, limited to Ray’s pecuniary losses
caused by statements that PATT would not be included in the
program, does not offend the First Amendment. The jury’s
verdict on Ray’s misrepresentation claims, however, included
both bases for the claims (defendants’ statement that the show
would be positive and defendants’ promise not to include PATT in
the program) and permitted broad recovery based on the entirety
of the broadcast. Hence, we must vacate the judgment on the
misrepresentation claims and remand for further proceedings on
those claims not inconsistent with this opinion. See
Levinsky’s, 127 F.3d at 134.
VII. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
-78-
Kennedy and Ray Veilleux both asserted claims for
negligent infliction of emotional distress. The district court
correctly determined that under Maine law, plaintiffs could not
premise this cause of action on the allegedly defamatory content
of the broadcast. See Rippett v. Bemis, 672 A.2d 82, 87-88 (Me.
1996) (emotional distress claim based on defamatory statements
is subsumed by defamation claim). It concluded that the claim
could be grounded instead in defendants' alleged negligent or
deliberate misrepresentations designed to secure plaintiffs’
cooperation (i.e., the promises that the coverage would be
positive and that PATT would not be included). Accordingly, the
district court instructed the jury that in considering whether
defendants had negligently inflicted emotional distress upon
the two plaintiffs, it could look only to the representations
made by defendants before plaintiffs agreed to participate in
the report, and not to the alleged defamatory statements made
during the broadcast.
The jury found that the defendants negligently made
false representations to plaintiffs that were designed to induce
their participation in the broadcast, causing them foreseeable
and severe emotional distress. It awarded Kennedy $100,000 on
this claim, and awarded Veilleux $50,000. Defendants assert
several points on appeal: that the negligent infliction claim is
-79-
barred because it is based on a misrepresentation theory, which
precludes emotional distress damages; that it is duplicative of
plaintiffs’ defamation claim; and that it offends the First
Amendment.
Under Maine law, proof of negligent infliction of
emotional distress requires plaintiffs to show that (1)
defendants were negligent; (2) plaintiffs suffered emotional
distress that was a reasonably foreseeable result of defendants'
negligent conduct; (3) and plaintiffs suffered severe emotional
distress as a result of defendants' negligence. See Braverman
v. Penobscot Shoe Co., 859 F. Supp. 596, 607 (D. Me. 1994)
(citing Bolton v. Caine, 584 A.2d 615, 617-18 (Me. 1990)).
Proof of an underlying tort or a physical injury is no longer
required to sustain a negligent infliction claim. See Gammon v.
Osteopathic Hosp. of Maine, Inc., 534 A.2d 1282, 1285 (Me.
1987). Recent Maine Supreme Judicial Court cases have extended
recovery for negligent infliction of severe emotional distress
to cases even where “emotional distress damages are the only
damages alleged.” Salley v. Childs, 541 A.2d 1297, 1300 n.2
(Me. 1988) (citing Gammon, 534 A.2d at 1285).
The Maine SJC, however, has reiterated that in
eliminating the requirements of an underlying tort or physical
injury, it did not create a new claim on which relief could be
-80-
granted. See Devine v. Roche Biomedical Labs., Inc., 637 A.2d
441, 447 (Me. 1994) (citing Gammon, 534 A.2d at 1285). Rather,
it simply removed barriers that prevented plaintiffs from
proceeding with claims already recognized in Maine law when the
only damage they suffered was to their psyches:
[Gammon] represented a recognition that emotional
distress alone may constitute compensable damage,
but was not meant to create a new ground for
liability, nor was it meant to give plaintiffs a
license to circumvent other requirements of the
law of torts.
Id.
To allow plaintiffs’ emotional distress claim here
appears to us to circumvent a well-established limitation on the
reach of the underlying misrepresentation tort expressly
declared by the Maine Law Court in 1987. As noted supra, the
Law Court then stated with utmost clarity that recovery for
misrepresentation is limited to pecuniary harm, and that
“emotional or mental pain and suffering are not recoverable.”
Jourdain, 527 A.2d at 1307; see also Chapman, 568 A.2d at 830.26
The Maine Law Court derived this restriction from the quasi-
contractual nature of misrepresentation torts, which serve to
26
While the Maine court has suggested that emotional
distress damages might be available for misrepresentation in
some limited circumstances, see Commercial Union Ins. Co. v.
Royal Ins. Co., 658 A.2d 1081, 1083 (Me. 1995), it has never
expressly overruled Jourdain or Chapman. We are reluctant to
rely on this dicta to chart a broad new course in Maine law.
-81-
protect economic interests. See Jourdain, 527 A.2d at 1307.
Significantly, the Court’s express refusal to remove the
limitation on recovery for psychic damages in misrepresentation
cases occurred in the very same year that the Court gave general
recognition to a broader basis for emotional distress damages in
Gammon. It seems unlikely, therefore, that the Maine Law Court
intended plaintiffs to evade its specific limitation on
misrepresentation damages simply by restyling what is in essence
a misrepresentation claim as a separate action for negligent
infliction. See Devine, 637 A.2d at 447.
Moreover, treating plaintiffs’ claim for negligent
infliction of emotional distress as outside the purview of the
misrepresentation tort and its restricted recovery would lead to
a further difficulty under Maine law: namely, Maine’s refusal to
permit separate emotional distress recovery absent a special
duty of care. “A plaintiff who fails to prove that the
defendant violated a duty of care owed to the plaintiff cannot
recover, whether the damage is emotional, physical, or
economic.” Devine, 637 A.2d at 447. To establish a defendant’s
duty for purposes of a separate claim of negligent infliction of
emotional distress, the plaintiff must do more than show that
the emotional harm was foreseeable. See Cameron v. Pepin, 610
A.2d 279, 284 (Me. 1992). The plaintiff must additionally show
-82-
that public policy favors the recognition of a legal duty to
refrain from inflicting emotional injury, based upon plaintiff’s
status or the relationship between the parties. See Bryan R. v.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York, Inc., 738 A.2d 839,
849 (Me. 1999) (declining to recognize relationship between
churches and their members that would give rise to duty to avoid
psychic injury to members); Bolton, 584 A.2d at 618 (holding
that a physician-patient relationship gives rise to a duty to
avoid emotional harm from failure to provide critical
information to patient); Gammon, 534 A.2d at 1285 (holding that
a hospital's relationship to the family of deceased gives rise
to a duty to avoid emotional harm from handling of remains);
Rowe v. Bennett, 514 A.2d 802, 806-07 (Me. 1986) (holding that
the unique nature of psychotherapist-patient relationship gives
rise to a duty of care to the patient).
The Maine Law Court has proceeded cautiously in
determining the scope of a defendant’s duty to avoid inflicting
emotional distress. See Bryan R., 738 A.2d at 848. That court
recently stated: “Only where a particular duty based upon the
unique relationship of the parties has been established may a
defendant be held responsible, absent some other wrongdoing, for
harming the emotional well-being of another.”. Id. Hence, we
are reluctant to expand this relatively undeveloped doctrine
-83-
beyond the narrow categories addressed thus far. See Dayton v.
Peck, Stow and Wilcox Co., 739 F.2d 690, 694-95 (1st Cir. 1984)
(federal court in diversity case will not innovate in state
law); see also Nieves v. Univ. of Puerto Rico, 7 F.3d 270, 278
(1st Cir. 1993) (noting that “[s]tate-law claimants who bypass
an available state forum generally are not entitled to
adventurous state-law interpretations from the federal forum”).
The relationship between a journalist and a potential subject
bears little resemblance to those the Law Court permitted to
recover in the above-cited cases. Moreover, the First Amendment
might arguably make it less appropriate to find such a
relationship, although we make no ruling in this regard.
Accordingly, as we find no basis on these facts for a
viable claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress
under Maine law, we reverse the judgment awarding damages to
Kennedy and Ray Veilleux on that claim.
VIII. INVASION OF PRIVACY
Maine courts have explicitly adopted the Restatement
approach to invasion of privacy, which recognizes four kinds of
interests, the invasion of which may give rise to a tort action
for breach of another person's right to privacy. See Nelson v.
Maine Times, 373 A.2d 1221, 1223 (Me. 1977) (citing Restatement
-84-
(Second) of Torts §§ 652A-E). As set forth in Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 652A, the right of privacy is invaded by:
(a) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of
another;
(b) appropriation of the other's name or likeness;
(c) unreasonable publicity given to the other's
private life; or
(d) publicity that unreasonably places the other in a
false light before the public.
Nelson v. Maine Times, 373 A.2d 1221, 1223 (Me. 1977).
Plaintiffs asserted and prevailed upon claims under the theories
of unreasonable publication of private facts and false light.27
Defendants contend that both claims fail as a matter of law.
A. Unreasonable Publication
Under Maine law, one who gives publicity to a matter
concerning the private life of another is subject to liability
to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter
publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a
reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the
public. See Nelson v. Maine Times, 373 A.2d 1221, 1225 (Me.
1977) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D).
Defendants argue that Kennedy’s claim for unreasonable
27 The unreasonable publication claim pertained only to
Kennedy, while the false light claim pertained to both Kennedy
and Ray.
-85-
publicity, based on the broadcast revelation of Kennedy’s
failure of a federally-mandated random drug test, fails because
(1) the test result was a matter of public concern, and (2) the
test result was already public at the time of the broadcast.
The constitutional validity of the unreasonable
publication tort is unclear. To date, the Supreme Court has
declined to decide "whether truthful publications may ever be
subjected to civil or criminal liability consistently with the
First and Fourteenth Amendments, or to put it another way,
whether the State may ever define and protect an area of privacy
free from unwanted publicity in the press . . ." Cox
Broadcasting Co. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 491 (1975); see also
Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 533 (1989) (again
declining to answer that question). We need not consider
whether this tort is constitutionally viable, because we
conclude that plaintiffs did not establish its state law
elements.
We ask first whether the result of Kennedy’s drug test
was “of legitimate concern to the public.” Nelson, 373 A.2d at
1225 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D). The
Restatement includes within the scope of legitimate public
concern matters of the kind customarily regarded as "news." See
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. g. "News" includes
-86-
publications concerning, inter alia, crimes, arrests, deaths
resulting from drugs, and other “matters of genuine, even if
more or less deplorable, popular appeal." Id. Individuals’
drug use, particularly where related to public safety, may be a
legitimate matter of public concern. See White v. Fraternal
Order of Police, 909 F.2d 512, 517 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (drug tests
performed on police officer). So, too, may be the regulation of
public health or safety. See, e.g., Shulman v. Group W
Productions, Inc., 955 P.2d 469, 488 (Cal. 1998) (traffic
accidents); Reuber, 925 F.2d at 719-20 (effectiveness of
government’s fight against cancer); Lee v. Calhoun, 948 F.2d
1162, 1165 (10th Cir. 1991) (policing medical malpractice).
We believe that Kennedy’s drug test results reasonably
tend to illustrate the report’s newsworthy themes of interstate
truck driving, highway safety and relevant government
regulation.28 Because the public may be legitimately concerned
with federally-mandated drug testing of truckers, Kennedy’s test
results, and the consequences of the results with regard to his
28 Kennedy was tested pursuant to DOT regulations
requiring random drug tests of drivers of commercial vehicles.
See 49 C.F.R. § 382.305 (1998). A driver who tests positive for
controlled substances is prohibited from remaining on duty, and
an employer who learns of such test results may not allow the
driver to continue to drive. Id. § 382.501.
-87-
driving career, defendants cannot be liable for invasion of
privacy as a matter of law. See Nelson, 373 A.2d at 1225.
Plaintiffs concede that the general subject matter of
the broadcast is of legitimate public concern. They also
concede the newsworthiness of the general topic of drug use
among interstate truck drivers. They deny, however, that the
public has a legitimate interest in the identity of an
individual driver who tested positive for drugs. See Y.G. and
L.G. v. Jewish Hosp. of St. Louis, 795 S.W.2d 488, 500 (Mo. Ct.
App. 1990) (while in vitro fertilization program may well have
been matter of public interest, identity of plaintiffs, who
participated in program, was not). We think, however, that the
factual circumstances for disclosure here are more compelling
than in Y.G., and we follow other circuit courts that have
permitted journalists to portray individuals’ personal
circumstances in ways that reveal their identities where
sufficiently related to a matter of public concern. See, e.g.,
Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222, 1233 (7 th Cir.
1993); White, 909 F.2d at 517; Gilbert v. Medical Economics
Company, 665 F.2d 305, 308 (10th Cir. 1981).
The plaintiff in Gilbert, a doctor who had been
featured in an article about malpractice, similarly complained
that while the topic of policing failures in the medical
-88-
profession was newsworthy, her name and photograph were not.
See 665 F.2d at 308.
The court disagreed:
With respect to the publication of
plaintiff's photograph and name, we find
that these truthful representations are
substantially relevant to a newsworthy topic
because they strengthen the impact and
credibility of the article. They obviate
any impression that the problems raised in
the article are remote or hypothetical, thus
providing an aura of immediacy and even
urgency that might not exist had plaintiff's
name and photograph been suppressed.
Id.29 See also Haynes, 8 F.3d at 1233 (Posner, J.)(defendant
author’s decision to use identified individuals to illustrate
themes in historical study was constitutionally protected);
White, 909 F.2d at 517 (identity of high-ranking police officer
who tested positive for marijuana was matter of public concern).
The same rationale applies here. Defendants learned
that the truck driver whom they had filmed for their program,
who had insisted that he did not currently use drugs and was a
safe driver, tested positive in DOT-mandated random tests for
29Gilbert and other federal cases applied what may well
be a more stringent test for the nexus between the disclosed
information and public concern than Maine law requires. The
Seventh Circuit considered whether the statements at issue were
“substantially relevant to a newsworthy topic,” 665 F.2d at 308
(emphasis added), while Maine law requires only that the
statements be “of legitimate concern to the public.” Nelson,
373 A.2d at 1225.
-89-
marijuana and amphetamines. We think defendants were entitled
to illustrate their messages about highway safety and regulation
with new information about the individual subject of their
report. 30 Simply reporting statistics about truckers who use
drugs, or discussing the details of Kennedy’s case without
mentioning him by name, would have substantially less impact.
The district court held that Kennedy’s test results
were insufficiently linked to the topic of highway safety
because there is no evidence that Kennedy was actually drug-
impaired while driving on the Dateline run. DOT regulations,
however, forbid driving after testing positive for drugs, and
given that positive results emerged from a test administered
while Kennedy was actually driving, it cannot be dismissed as
lacking in newsworthiness. Defendants could draw from Kennedy’s
failure of the drug test the reasonable inference that there was
some likelihood that his driving was sometimes drug-impaired,
thereby endangering the public. “If the press is to have the
30 We note that the information learned about Kennedy
pertained directly to highway safety, as Kennedy’s random drug
test was ordered pursuant to DOT requirements for commercial
drivers like Kennedy. Kennedy’s positive test took place while
he was engaged in a driving assignment: the westbound portion of
the same trip later accompanied by Dateline. Kennedy denied
using amphetamines and attributed the marijuana test results to
recreational usage some weeks before leaving for the Dateline
run. Under relevant DOT regulations, however, the test results
were clearly material to his suitability to drive. See 49
C.F.R. § 382.501 (1998).
-90-
generous breathing space that courts have accorded it thus far,
editors must have freedom to make reasonable judgments and to
draw one inference where others also reasonably could be drawn.”
Gilbert, 665 F.2d at 309.
It is true, as Kennedy contends, that his drug test
results were subject to strict confidentiality requirements
under state and federal law. This is not a case, therefore, in
which the news media has simply reported a crime that is already
a matter of public record. Compare Cox, 420 U.S. at 495-96
(identity of rape victim acquired from public court documents)
with Haynes, 8 F.3d at 1232 (primary source of personal facts
about plaintiff was personal interview, not public documents).
Information does not have to be a matter of public record,
however, in order to relate to a matter of public concern such
that it can be disclosed by the media. See Haynes, 8 F.3d at
1232; see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. e (“the
legitimate interest of the public may extend beyond those
matters which are themselves made public, and to some reasonable
extent may include information as to matters that would
otherwise be private”).
In short, we hold that Kennedy’s drug test results were
of legitimate public concern such that defendants may not be
liable for invasion of privacy under an unreasonable publication
-91-
theory. Accordingly, there is no need to reach the other issue
presented by defendants on appeal, which was whether the test
result was already public at the time of the broadcast.
B. False light
In Nelson v. Maine Times, 373 A.2d 1221 (Me. 1977), the
Maine Supreme Judicial Court adopted the requirements for “false
light” invasion of privacy of the Restatement (Second) of Torts
§ 652E (1977). Id. at 1223-24. One who gives publicity to a
matter concerning another that places the other before the
public in a false light is subject to liability for invasion of
privacy, if (a) the false light in which the other was placed
would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) the
actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the
falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which
the other was placed. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E.
Put another way, Maine law requires proof of defendants’ “actual
malice.” See Cantrell v. Forest City Publ’g Co., 419 U.S. 245,
251-52 (1974); Frobose v. American Sav. and Loan Ass'n of
Danville, 152 F.3d 602, 617 (7th Cir. 1998).
The plaintiffs’ false light claim was premised on
precisely the same thirteen statements that underlay their
defamation claim, most of which were rejected on appeal because
plaintiffs failed to establish that defendants acted with the
-92-
requisite fault. A fortiori, plaintiffs cannot satisfy the more
onerous standard of actual malice required by Maine law for
their false light claim.
To the extent that our defamation holding was premised
on concepts other than lack of fault, constitutional limitations
on false light claims similarly preclude our entertaining a
false light claim. See Brown v. Hearst Corp., 54 F.3d 21, 27
(1st Cir. 1995); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E
cmt. e. Specifically, those statements that we rejected because
plaintiffs failed to establish that they were materially false
cannot support a false light claim any more than they can a
defamation claim. See Brown, 54 F.3d at 27; Varnish v. Best
Medium Publ’g Co., Inc., 405 F.2d 608, 611 (2d Cir. 1968); see
also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E cmt. c. Nor can
protected statements of opinion support a claim of false light.
See Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1160-61 (9th Cir.
1995); Moldea v. New York Times Co., 22 F.3d 310, 319 (D.C.
Cir. 1994); White, 909 F.2d at 518; Rinsley v. Brandt, 700 F.2d
1304, 1307 (10th Cir. 1983). Moreover, to the extent that we
determined that the statements at issue did not disparage
plaintiffs, those statements fail to satisfy the requirement
under Maine law that the false light in which plaintiffs were
placed be “highly offensive to a reasonable person.”
-93-
Plaintiffs nonetheless contend that we should sustain
their false light claim even if we reverse the defamation
judgment. It is true that there are some differences in the
common law elements of these two claims. See, e.g., Machleder,
801 F.2d at 55-56 (unlike defamation, false light doctrine does
not distinguish between oral and written words, or between
slander per se and slander requiring special damages); Frye v.
IBP, Inc., 15 F. Supp.2d 1032, 1043 (D. Kan. 1998) (false light
and defamation differ in that former contains expanded publicity
requirement); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E cmt.
b (statement need not be defamatory to support a false light
claim). None of these distinctions, however, are material here.
No Maine court has yet grappled with the question of
whether a false light claim may proceed where a defamation claim
premised on the same statement may not. Given that we
previously have rejected this sort of evasion of constitutional
restrictions, see Brown, 54 F.3d at 27; Gashgai v. Leibowitz,
703 F.2d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 1983), as well as the absence of clear
precedent in other circuits, we will not break new and
constitutionally suspect ground today. Accordingly, we reverse
the judgment as to the plaintiffs’ false light claim.
IX. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
-94-
The parties agree that Kelly Veilleux’s damages for
loss of consortium are conditioned on the success of Ray’s
claims. We therefore vacate the judgment and that count and
remand it to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
X. PUNITIVE DAMAGES
In their cross-appeal, plaintiffs contend that the
district court erred in deciding that there was insufficient
evidence of common-law malice to allow the jury to consider
awarding plaintiffs punitive damages. To receive punitive
damages, Maine law requires a plaintiff to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the defendant was motivated by “ill
will” toward the plaintiff, or acted so “outrageously” that
malice could be inferred. Tuttle v. Raymond, 494 A.2d 1353,
1361 (Me. 1985). Limiting our consideration of the evidence to
defendants’ conduct relating to the viable portions of the
misrepresentation claim, we see no error.
Plaintiffs contend that the record contains sufficient
evidence of defendants’ “outrageous” conduct to support a
punitive damages award. Reviewing the record as it stood before
the district court at the time of its summary judgment ruling,
see Voutour v. Vitale, 761 F.2d 812, 817 (1st Cir. 1985), we see
-95-
no reason to disagree with the district court that the evidence
fails to meet the strict standard set forth in Tuttle. The
record does not support a conclusion that defendants'
representations not to include PATT in the broadcast were
motivated by anything more malicious than the zealous pursuit of
an emotionally compelling story. While a jury could find that
the alleged misrepresentations were made knowingly or even
recklessly, it could not reasonably infer common-law malice as
required under Maine law.
XI. CONCLUSION
We hold as follows: (1) we reverse the judgment in
favor of Ray and Kennedy on their defamation claim (Count III);
(2) we reverse the judgment on Ray's misrepresentation claims
(Counts I and II) insofar as premised on defendants’ alleged
assurances that their portrayal of the trucking industry would
be “positive,” and we vacate the judgment and remand for further
proceedings those portions of the same claims premised on
defendants’ alleged promises not to include PATT in the program;
(3) we reverse the judgment on Ray and Kennedy's negligent
infliction of emotional distress claim (Count VI); (4) we
reverse the judgment on the invasion of privacy claim as to both
Kennedy's “unreasonable publication” theory (Count IV) and Ray
-96-
and Kennedy's “false light” theory (Count V); (5) we vacate the
judgment as to Kelly Veilleux’s loss of consortium claim (Count
VIII) and remand for further proceedings; and (6) we deny
plaintiffs’ cross-appeal in its entirety.
Reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for
further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
-97-