Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. (1971), 5 C.P.R. (2d) 30, is generally thought to be the first case to clearly acknowledge the existence in Canada of a tort of appropriation of personality.

1 Background
2 Opinion of the Lower Court
3 Court of Appeal Reversal
4 External links

[edit] Background

Robert 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. At trial he had argued invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, passing off, and appropriation of personality.

[edit] Opinion of the Lower Court

The Court found that Krouse did have a right to protect the commercial advertising power in his image. Along with marketing his athletic ability, Krouse markets his reputation and image. Both are a product of his work and effort, and so should be entitled to protect it.

In examining the Spotter, the Court found that Chrysler was attempting to take advantage of Krouse's image to increase sales. Krouse was clearly idenitifable 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. He was granted $1,000 for general damages.

[edit] Court of Appeal Reversal

The decision of the lower court was reversed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Krouse v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. (1973), 13 C.P.R. (2d) 28. Estey J. held for the Appeal Court 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.