| Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Ontario Court of Appeal |
| Citation(s) | (1973) 40 D.L.R. (3d) 15 (Ont. C.A.), (1973) 13 C.P.R. (2d) 28 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd., (1971), 5 C.P.R. (2d) 30 |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Estey J.A. |
Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. is generally thought to be the first case to clearly acknowledge the existence in Canada of a tort of appropriation of personality.
Bob Krouse was a well-known professional football player with the Hamilton Tiger-cats who played as the number 14. Grant Advertising was an advertising firm whose clients included Chrysler Canada. In 1969, Grant had produced an advertising scheme for Chrysler which included a cardboard scorecard that was distributed to the public. The scorecard was known as the "Plymouth Pro Football Spotter" which allowed football fans to track scores. On the Spotter was an image of Krouse from behind with his number 14 clearly visible.
Krouse sued Chrysler for use of his image without his consent.
The claim that was presented was considered to consist of five distinct elements:
In his opinion, Haines J. considered the first claim to be novel in principle, and accordingly declined to rule on it. The third and fourth claims were also dismissed. He then proceeded to what he regarded as the ‘guts’ of the case: the claim that ‘the plaintiff [had] become identified with the products of the defendants and ...had ...his chances of advertising for other automobile manufacturers seriously affected’. Such a claim raised three key issues of fact and law:
The first question was answered in the affirmative, and it was found that the second question could also be answered affirmatively, based on two ‘separate but closely related lines of cases’: passing off, and the right of an individual to the elements of his identity.
In his opinion, Haines J. found that Krouse did have a right to protect the commercial advertising power in his image. Along with marketing his athletic ability, Krouse also marketed his reputation and image. Both were a product of his work and effort, and so he should be entitled to protect it. As was noted in the opinion:
[o]ne would think that the wrongful appropriation of that which in the business world has commercial value and is traded daily must ipso facto involve a property right which the Courts protect. Property being an open-ended concept to protect the possession and use of that which has measurable commercial value, logic seems to impel such a result.
In examining the Spotter, the Court found that Chrysler was attempting to take advantage of Krouse's image to increase sales. Krouse was clearly identifiable within the picture and was the centre of focus. The Court found, however, that Krouse was unable to show that his ability to market his image was harmed, and he was granted $1,000 for general damages.
The defendants appealed, arguing that there was no valid cause of action, since the use of the plaintiff's image was not libellous, and since there was an absence of a common field of activity on which to found an action in passing off.
The Ontario Court of Appeal found for the defendants on the passing off claim, by maintaining the need to show a common field of activity. In a decision written by Estey J.A., it was held that while Canadian law may contemplate a tort of appropriation of personality, the elements of that cause of action were not made out in this case.
Estey, J.A. did not categorically dismiss the possibility of a tort that could broadly be read to encompass an individual's right to control how his or her personality is used:
[T]he common law does contemplate a concept in the law of torts which may be broadly classified as an appropriation of one's personality […] there may well be circumstances in which the Courts would be justified in holding a defendant liable in damages for appropriation of a plaintiff's personality, amounting to an invasion of his right to exploit his personality by the use of his image, voice or otherwise with damage to the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeal did not elaborate on, or depart from, Haines J's analysis of the law at first instance.
The case was unique in that relatively little weight was placed on the need for formal authority. What was more important were the underlying reasons of substance, particularly the apparent commercial reality that a person's image had a de facto value and was effectively traded as a commodity. The new tort of appropriation of personality did not develop through a gradual extension of an existing cause of action, such as passing off or libel, until it formed a separate and autonomous cause of action, but rather through one bold judicial stroke at first instance.
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.
Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations.
The right of publicity, sometimes referred to as personality rights, is the right of an individual to control the commercial use of one's identity, such as name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal identifiers. It is generally considered a property right as opposed to a personal right, and as such, the validity of the right of publicity can survive the death of the individual.
In common law countries such as the United Kingdom, the Philippines and New Zealand, passing off is a common law tort which can be used to enforce unregistered trade mark rights. The tort of passing off protects the goodwill of a trader from misrepresentation.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. Some courts and commentators have substituted mental for emotional, but the tort is the same.
Trespass to chattels is a tort whereby the infringing party has intentionally interfered with another person's lawful possession of a chattel. The interference can be any physical contact with the chattel in a quantifiable way, or any dispossession of the chattel. As opposed to the greater wrong of conversion, trespass to chattels is argued to be actionable per se.
International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case, is a 1918 decision of the United States Supreme Court that enunciated the misappropriation doctrine of federal intellectual property common law—that a "quasi-property right" may be created against others by one's investment of effort and money in an intangible thing, such as information or a design. The doctrine is highly controversial and criticized by many legal scholars, but it has its supporters.
Economic torts, which are also called business torts, are torts that provide the common law rules on liability which arise out of business transactions such as interference with economic or business relationships and are likely to involve pure economic loss.
Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.
Alienation of affections is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. Where it still exists, an action is brought by a spouse against a third party alleged to be responsible for damaging the marriage, most often resulting in divorce. The defendant in an alienation of affections suit is typically an adulterous spouse's lover, although family members, counselors, and therapists or clergy members who have advised a spouse to seek divorce have also been sued for alienation of affections.
Gould Estate v Stoddart Publishing Co Ltd (1998), 39 OR 555, is a Canadian case on appropriation of personality, the ownership of copyright, and requirements of fixation.
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio is a legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it arises in connection with their own tortious act. Particularly relevant in the law of contract, tort and trusts, ex turpi causa is also known as the illegality defence, since a defendant may plead that even though, for instance, he broke a contract, conducted himself negligently or broke an equitable duty, nevertheless a claimant by reason of his own illegality cannot sue. The UK Supreme Court provided a thorough reconsideration of the doctrine in 2016 in Patel v Mirza.
Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 706 was a federal case in which artist Saul Steinberg sued various parties involved with producing and promoting the 1984 movie Moscow on the Hudson, claiming that a promotional poster for the movie infringed his copyright in a magazine cover, View of the World from 9th Avenue, he had created for The New Yorker.
Conversion is an intentional tort consisting of "taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner's right of possession". In England & Wales, it is a tort of strict liability. Its equivalents in criminal law include larceny or theft and criminal conversion. In those jurisdictions that recognise it, criminal conversion is a lesser crime than theft/larceny.
Krouse v. Graham, 19 Cal.3d 59 (1977), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California ruling that a lack of visual perception of an accident did not necessarily preclude recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow & Co [1892] AC 25 is an English tort law case concerning the economic tort of conspiracy to injure. A product of its time, the courts adhered to a laissez faire doctrine allowing firms to form a cartel, which would now be seen as contrary to the Competition Act 1998.
Bob Krouse is a former professional Canadian football linebacker who played thirteen seasons in the Canadian Football League for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. He was a part of the Tiger-Cats 1963, 1965, 1967 and 1972 Grey Cup winning teams.
In Canada, passing off is both a common law tort and a statutory cause of action under the Canadian Trade-marks Act referring to the deceptive representation or marketing of goods or services by competitors in a manner that confuses consumers. The law of passing off protects the goodwill of businesses by preventing competitors from passing off their goods as those of another.
Athans v Canadian Adventure Camps Ltd, 1977 CanLII 1255, 17 OR (2d) 425, 80 DLR (3d) 583, is an appropriation of personality case in Canada, which recognized the right of exclusive right to market one's personality.