#Hustler magazine covers 1984 verification

(Vernon 1958) (one year), the district court held that the privacy causes was governed by the two-year limitations period of article 5526. Although the Woods' defamation cause was time-barred by article 5524, .Ann. The district court determined that the law of Texas, not California, applied.

LaJuan and Billy sued Hustler for defamation and for invasion of privacy on two theories-publication depicting the subject in a false light highly offensive to a reasonable person and public disclosure of private facts not of legitimate public concern and highly offensive to a reasonable person.

#Hustler magazine covers 1984 verification

If either the consent form itself or the responses during verification caused Hustler to become suspicious, or if the model had developed doubts about appearing nude in print, Hustler was supposed to place the model's entry into a 'Never to Run' category. If no telephone number was listed, Hustler would send a mailgram or telegram to the address shown for the model, requesting that Hustler be called collect. Hustler's informal policy, however, was to call the telephone number listed in the consent form and ask whomever claimed to be the model nonleading questions designed to elicit responses that would confirm information in the consent form. Although Hustler had maintained its 'Beaver Hunt' section for some time, it did not have a written policy or procedure for verifying the accuracy of information and signatures contained in the consent forms when a photograph was to be published. Hustler's 'Beaver Hunt' section featured nude photographs, typically sent in by Hustler readers, of nonprofessional female 'models.' If a submitted photo was selected for publication, the model would receive a $50 fee. Other information was false, such as LaJuan's age and address and a fantasy of being 'tied down and screwed by two bikers.' Kelley forged LaJuan's signature and they mailed the photograph and consent form to Hustler in California. Some of the information was true, such as LaJuan's identity and her hobby of collecting arrowheads. Accordingly, they filled out a consent form that requested personal information. Simpson and Kelley Rhoades, who was then his wife, decided to submit a nude photo of LaJuan to Hustler for publication in its 'Beaver Hunt' section. One day, Steve Simpson, who resided in the other side of the Woods' duplex, broke into the Woods' home and stole some of the photos. They treated the photographs as private material, not showing them to anyone else and keeping them out of view in a drawer in their bedroom. After returning home, Billy submitted the roll of film to an establishment that employed a mechanical developing process. Later they took several photos of each other in the nude. While walking alone in a wilderness area, they became hot, disrobed, and went swimming in a river. LaJuan and Billy Wood went camping in a state park. We affirm the judgment for LaJuan, but reverse the judgment for her husband.

The district court held that the cause was not barred by limitations, that Hustler invaded the Woods' privacy by publishing the photograph without adequately verifying the truth of the consent form, and that she and her husband Billy were damaged in the amounts of $150,000 and $25,000, respectively. We must determine the applicable statute of limitations for privacy actions as well as the level of fault required to impose liability for actual damages on a publisher who places a private figure in a false light. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858(Tex.1973), they have not resolved issues critical to our disposition of this diversity case.

Although Texas courts have begun to flesh out the contours of the privacy cause first recognized in Billings v. Hustler Magazine invaded LaJuan Wood's privacy by publishing a stolen photograph, depicting LaJuan in the nude, that was submitted with a forged consent form.