Added: Rochele Dolph - Date: 23.02.2022 19:48 - Views: 17123 - Clicks: 2258
Collins appeals. Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, we affirm. Creative Loafing Atlanta, Inc. Before I dig into dirt of the Telemarketing world, let me state, in fairness, that there is a segment of Telemarketing which serves as an invaluable, legitimate and ethical trading and communication link in commerce, operated and staffed by skilled professionals.
The sale itself is not the scam. TSRs, after all, are just promise makers and order takers. It is whether or not the TM firm owners deliver, and what they do with the buyer's credit card or checking information behind the scenes that determines the honesty of it all. The disputed cartoon illustration was published on the cover of March 8 through March 14,Volume 6, Creative Loafing Savannah. By the day following publication, Collins had read the article about TM practices. Although it is undisputed that the article had absolutely nothing to do with Collins or the advertisement sales she performed for CLS, Collins was extremely disturbed that a cartoon image favoring her likeness was used in relation to the story.
Such was not forthcoming. Collins gave notice and terminated her employment with CLS. The instant suit followed.
The record contains, inter alia, the disputed cartoon illustration and photographs of Collins attempting to facially mirror the cartoon. Upon motion and without findings of fact or conclusions of law, the trial court granted summary judgment to CLS and dismissed Collins' complaint.
Collins contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to CLS. We disagree. To prevail on its motion for summary judgment, CLS must show that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of Collins' case. All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial.
If the words [or picture] used really contain[s] no reflection on any particular individual, no averment or innuendo can make them defamatory. An innuendo can not make the person certain which was uncertain before. Both the cartoon and Collins are female and have dark hair, bangs, and glasses.
So the whole item should be read and construed together, and its meaning and ification thus determined. When thus read, if its meaning is so unambiguous as to reasonably bear but one interpretation, it is for the judge to say whether that ification is defamatory or not. After consideration of the article on which Collins' suit is based, we conclude that a jury issue is not presented in this case. The contents of the article do not even remotely reflect on Collins. Not only is Collins' name never used, she is not even a TSR as such position is contemplated and defined in the article.
Clearly, she was personally offended by this decision. So this is what some of my co-workers think of me. For the reasons discussed in Division 1, supra, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to CLS on Collins' claims of invasion of privacy-false light and appropriation. Based on the evidence in the record, the court did not err in concluding as a matter of law that Collins' assertions about a an unidentifiable cartoon loosely based upon her likeness, b a headline that did not refer to her, and c an article concerning fraudulent telemarketing practices that in no way reflected upon Collins or her employment did not rise to the requisite level of outrageousness and egregiousness so as to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Citation omitted. Hansen v. Cooper, Ga. Citation and punctuation omitted. Armscorp of America v. Daugherty, Ga. It is undisputed that Collins does not smoke cigarettes while on the telephone. Daugherty, supra at 20, S. Bakin, Ga. Stockton, Ga. Cox Enterprises v. Nix, Ga. Fiske v. Stockton, supra at 1S. Punctuation omitted. Nix, supra atS. Reece v.
Chestatee State Bank, Ga. Explore Resources For Practice Management. Legal Technology. Corporate Counsel. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. Reset A A Font size: Print.
Court of Appeals of Georgia. Decided: December 12, Neal H. Howard, William D. James, Atlanta, for appellant. Cynthia L. Counts, Atlanta, for appellee. Judgment affirmed. Thank you for subscribing! Please try again.Creative loafing advertising atlanta
email: [email protected] - phone:(646) 195-8094 x 2194