Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantnegligenceliabilityappealtrialmotionsummary judgmentcommon law
plaintiffdefendantnegligenceliabilitymotionsummary judgmentcommon law

Related Cases

Mohr v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 269 Wis.2d 302, 2004 WI App 5, 674 N.W.2d 576, 184 Ed. Law Rep. 981
View Case »
Sanchez v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 104 Cal.App.4th 703, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 529, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 16,483, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,237, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,355
View Case »
Grady v. Chenango Valley Central School District, nan
View Case »
Mohr v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 269 Wis.2d 302, 2004 WI App 5, 674 N.W.2d 576, 184 Ed. Law Rep. 981
View Case »
Mohr v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 269 Wis.2d 302, 2004 WI App 5, 674 N.W.2d 576, 184 Ed. Law Rep. 981
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1190, 26 Media L. Rep. 2364, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7327, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,161

Facts

Donald Newcombe, a former major league baseball pitcher and recovering alcoholic, filed a lawsuit against Coors Brewing Co., an advertising agency, and the publisher of Sports Illustrated for using his likeness in a beer advertisement without his consent. Newcombe claimed that the advertisement misappropriated his identity, defamed him by suggesting he endorsed alcohol, and caused him emotional distress. The case was removed to federal court, where the district court denied his motion to remand and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. Newcombe appealed the decision.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in denying Newcombe's motion to remand and in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his claims of commercial misappropriation, defamation, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Whether the district court erred in denying Newcombe's motion to remand and in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on his claims of commercial misappropriation, defamation, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Rule

To establish a common law claim for commercial misappropriation, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) appropriation of the plaintiff's name or likeness for the defendant's advantage; (3) lack of consent; and (4) resulting injury. Under California law, a publication is libelous on its face if it is defamatory without needing explanatory matter.

To sustain a common law cause of action for commercial misappropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity, (2) the appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's advantage, commercially or otherwise, (3) lack of consent, and (4) resulting injury.

Analysis

The court found that material issues of fact existed regarding whether Newcombe's likeness was used in the advertisement and whether he was readily identifiable. The drawing in the advertisement closely resembled Newcombe's stance as a pitcher, which could lead a jury to conclude that his likeness was appropriated for commercial advantage. However, the court also noted that the publisher of Sports Illustrated could not be held liable as it did not benefit directly from the advertisement's content. The court concluded that Newcombe failed to establish his defamation claim as the advertisement did not inherently suggest he endorsed alcohol without additional context.

Material issues of fact existed as to whether former major league baseball pitcher's stance was so distinctive that beer company and advertiser used his likeness by using picture of his stance, and thus whether pitcher was readily identifiable as pitcher in advertisement containing drawing from picture of pitcher, precluding summary judgment on pitcher's common law and statutory causes of action for commercial misappropriation of another's likeness.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversing the summary judgment for Coors and Belding on Newcombe's common law misappropriation claim, while upholding the judgment for the publisher, Time Inc.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Who won?

The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, particularly Time Inc., as it found that the publisher did not have knowledge of the unauthorized use of Newcombe's likeness and thus was exempt from liability under California law. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for Coors and Belding, allowing Newcombe's claims against them to proceed to trial.

The court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, particularly Time Inc., as it found that the publisher did not have knowledge of the unauthorized use of Newcombe's likeness and thus was exempt from liability under California law.

You must be