News
Summers Will Not Finish Semester of Teaching as Harvard Investigates Epstein Ties
News
Harvard College Students Report Favoring Divestment from Israel in HUA Survey
News
‘He Should Resign’: Harvard Undergrads Take Hard Line Against Summers Over Epstein Scandal
News
Harvard To Launch New Investigation Into Epstein’s Ties to Summers, Other University Affiliates
News
Harvard Students To Vote on Divestment From Israel in Inaugural HUA Election Survey
A federal court jury last week awarded a Harvard Medical School professor $250,000 in a libel suit against an electric shaving machine manufacturer.
William R. Hill, Jr., instructor in Dermatology, brought suit against the Sperry-Rand Corp. for listing him as co-author of a magazine article which he did not write. The article, entitled "Modern Shaving Techniques in Relation to Lesions of the Skin," appeared in the March, 1961 edition of G. P. Magazine. 30,000 general practitioners, throughout the country subscribe to the magazine.
The article stated that electric shavers and specifially the Remington shaver, were less likely to cause lesions of the skin than regular razors. The claim was based on research supposedly done by the authors.
Remington Rand used the article as a reference in a ten-month world-wide campaign and offered interested readers reprints from the medical journal.
According to C. Keefe Hurley, Hill's attorney, the research attributed to Hill never took place, and Hill did not consent to the use of his name on the article. Hurley added that Sperry-Rand "stole Dr. Hill's name and stole his reputation."
Article 'Untrue'
Hill said that the article was "untrue," and charged that he was the object of ridicule and scorn because he was listed as an author.
Edward F. Finnerty, Jr., formerly of Tufts Medical School, and the late Salvatore J. Messina of Boston University School of Medicine, were listed as the other two co-authors. According to Hurley, Messina had not consented to use of his name, either.
Hurley said that the case is the first of its kind and that the award was one of the largest made in the U.S. District Court in Boston. He added that he had asked damages "for the purpose of deterring anyone from doing this in the future."
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.