|
But Reade ruled that Hagar did not defame the woman because he did not refer to her by name in the book
-- identifying her erroneously as a "Playboy bunny from California"
-- and the woman did not prove she suffered any financial, reputational or emotional injuries from his statements. Only individuals who already knew about their relationship, not the general public, would have understood Hagar was referring to her in the book, she added. "Although Hagar's statements in 'Red' brought back painful memories for Doe, the evidence does not support a finding that Hagar's conduct was extreme enough to permit the court to find outrageous conduct sufficient to support Doe's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim," Reade wrote. Hagar did not breach their confidentiality agreement because he did not disclose the terms of the deal, she added. An attorney for Doe didn't immediately return a message. She still has time to file notice of appeal.
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor