7/27/2019 James Forsher v. Vincent Bugliosi (May 29, 1979)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/james-forsher-v-vincent-bugliosi-may-29-1979 1/1

JAMES FORSHER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. VINCENT BUGLIOSI et al., Defendants and

Respondents.

Civ. No. 43060.

Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Three

93 Cal. App. 3d 475; 155 Cal. Rptr. 811; 1979 Cal. App. LEXIS 1785; 5 Media L. Rep. 1145

May 29, 1979

NOTICE: NOT CITABLE - SUPERSEDED BY GRANT OF REVIEW

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] Hg. granted Aug. 29, 1979 (see 26 C.3d 792)

PRIOR HISTORY: Superior Court of San Francisco County, No. 706799, John E. Benson, Judge.

CASE SUMMARY 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff appealed an order of the Superior Court of San

Francisco County (California) which dismissed his claims for libel and invasion of privacy

against defendant authors. The trial court found that no special damages had been pleaded

and that plaintiff had not stated a claim for libel on its face.

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff individual was mentioned by name in the book "Helter Skelter" in

connection with the disappearance of an attorney for the Manson family during the murder 

trial which was the subject of the book. Plaintiff brought an action for libel and invasion of 

 privacy against defendant authors, but the trial court sustained defendants' demurrer 

without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed and the court reversed, finding that both causes

of action had been sufficiently pleaded. For libel, the court found that because plaintiff 

had pled no special damages he was required to show libel on its face, which the court

agreed appeared from the context of the statements in the book. The court found that such

a claim was possible even though the complained of language was also susceptible of a

nondefamatory construction. The court further found a valid claim for invasion of privacy

where the events described in the book, while still newsworthy, may have been too distant

at five years in the past for defendants to be able to establish a benefit under  U.S. Const.

amend. I for revealing the true identity of someone not involved in the murder trial.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims for libel and invasion

of privacy against defendant authors, finding both that plaintiff stated a claim for libel on

its face even though the statements in defendants' book could also have a nondefamatory

meaning, and that plaintiff had stated a claim for invasion of privacy because his identity

had been published five years after the events described in the book.