American Transmission, Inc v. Channel 7 of Detroit, Inc
609 N.W.2d 607, 239 Mich. App. 695 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Consent to enter a property is a valid defense to a trespass claim even if the consent was obtained through misrepresentation, provided the entry does not invade the specific interests protected by the tort of trespass, such as interfering with the peaceable possession of land.
Facts:
- Joe Ducey, a consumer reporter for Channel 7, decided to investigate transmission repair shops after a consumer group reported a high number of complaints.
- Ducey and Channel 7 rented a car which a certified mechanic, Morrie Schwartz, confirmed had no transmission problems.
- For the investigation, Schwartz deliberately disconnected the car's vacuum hose, which created obvious shifting problems and a 'clunking noise' that he stated should be easy to diagnose.
- Evelyn Stem, a volunteer equipped with a hidden camera, posed as a customer and took the car to American Transmissions of Troy, after Ducey disconnected the hose nearby.
- The manager at American Transmissions of Troy failed to identify the disconnected hose and told Stem the transmission required an internal inspection to 'cut the cancer out,' at a minimum cost of $249.
- Ducey later visited the shop owner, Barry Bryan, with a camera crew and confronted him with the hidden camera footage.
- Channel 7 aired a broadcast reporting that American Transmissions of Troy, unlike four other shops that correctly diagnosed the issue for free, had recommended expensive, unnecessary repairs.
Procedural Posture:
- American Transmission, Inc., and American Transmissions of Troy (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Channel 7 of Detroit, Inc., and Joe Ducey (defendants) in a Michigan trial court.
- The complaint alleged defamation, fraud, trespass, and intentional interference with prospective business relationships.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial.
- The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary disposition on all claims.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the trial court denied.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary disposition to the Michigan Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual commit trespass when they gain consent to enter a commercial establishment open to the public by misrepresenting their identity and purpose for an undercover investigation, if their subsequent actions do not disrupt the business or invade private spaces?
Opinions:
Majority - Cavanagh, J.
No, an individual does not commit trespass under these circumstances. Consent to enter a commercial property is not invalidated by misrepresentation of purpose if the entrant's activities do not infringe upon the specific interests that the law of trespass protects. The court adopted the reasoning from Desnick v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., holding that because the reporter's agent, Stem, only entered areas open to the public, did not disrupt the business, and did not invade any private space, her entry was not an actionable trespass. Her actions were analogous to those of a restaurant critic or a housing discrimination tester, whose consent to enter is legally effective despite their concealed intentions. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the defamation claim, reasoning that the plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that the broadcast's implication of dishonesty was materially false, as the underlying reported facts—the failure to diagnose the simple problem and the recommendation for expensive disassembly—were true.
Analysis:
This case establishes an important precedent in Michigan by adopting the Desnick test for trespass by misrepresentation, an issue of first impression in the state. The ruling provides significant protection for undercover investigative journalism, clarifying that entry into a business open to the public is not trespass just because it was gained through deception, so long as the conduct on the premises is not invasive or disruptive. This decision balances property rights with the public interest in newsgathering, creating a standard that distinguishes between benign undercover work and tortious invasions of privacy or property. It also reinforces the high evidentiary burden on plaintiffs in defamation-by-implication cases, requiring them to prove the falsity of the damaging implication itself, not just collateral facts.
Unlock the full brief for American Transmission, Inc v. Channel 7 of Detroit, Inc