Burton v. Crowell Pub. Co

I'm teaching Advanced Torts this Fall. I've not taught this course for a dozen years, so I decided to start from scratch. One topic that I will cover for the first time is libel. It's more relevant now than it was a dozen years ago. In putting together my syllabus, I came across Learned Hand's opinion in Burton v. Crowell Publishing Co. I'd never heard of this case before. Boy, was I missing out.

The case involved a minor celebrity who was paid to appear in a cigarette ad. One of the photos that was used in the ad contained an . . . unfortunate optical illusion. The celebrity sued for libel and Hand concluded that the action could go forward even though the ad did not impugn plaintiff's character in the way that a traditional libel or slander did. The ad held plaintiff up to widespread ridicule.  That was sufficient, especially when the photo was viewed in connection with the ad's slogan.

Of course, describing the case without the ad would take away all the fun. Below is the ad in question. It's a good reminder that you should also insist on seeing photos before they get published or disseminated.