Baugh v. CBS, INC.
828 F. Supp. 745, 93 Daily Journal DAR 10373, 21 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2065 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Consent to enter a property is an absolute defense to the torts of trespass and intrusion on seclusion, even if that consent was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. A plaintiff's remedy for fraudulently induced consent lies in a claim for fraud or intentional infliction of emotional distress, not trespass or intrusion.
Facts:
- On January 21, 1992, Yolanda Baugh called 911 to report a domestic violence incident involving her husband at her home.
- While a police officer was present, a camera crew entered Baugh's home.
- Baugh initially told the crew to leave, but a police officer stated they were from the District Attorney's office and were there to help her.
- Relying on the officer's assurance, Baugh allowed the crew to re-enter.
- A crew member told Baugh they were filming a segment about Elaine Lopes, a victim's advocate, for the District Attorney’s office.
- Baugh agreed to the filming on the express condition that she would not be shown on television, to which a crew member responded, 'Okay.'
- The crew, actually from the CBS news program 'STREET STORIES', later broadcast the footage of Baugh nationally as part of a segment about a victims' assistance program.
- Prior to the broadcast, Baugh learned of CBS's intent and demanded they not use her image, but her request was denied.
Procedural Posture:
- Yolanda Baugh and Donyelle Baugh filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against CBS, Inc., Group W Television, Inc., and Dan Moguloff.
- The complaint alleged various torts, including appropriation of likeness, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, unfair competition, disclosure of private facts, fraud, and emotional distress.
- All defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
- Defendant Group W also moved for dismissal on the separate ground that it was merely a conduit for the network broadcast.
- The plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on their trespass and unfair competition claims.
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 a news crew's entry into a private home constitute trespass or intrusion on seclusion when the homeowner grants consent, but that consent is induced by the crew's misrepresentation of their identity and purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Fern M. Smith
No. A news crew's entry into a private home does not constitute trespass or intrusion on seclusion where consent to enter was given, even if that consent was procured through misrepresentation. Trespass requires a lack of consent, and since Baugh admittedly consented to the crew's physical entry, a trespass claim cannot be sustained. California law does not require that consent be 'knowing or meaningful' to defeat a trespass claim. While exceeding the scope of consent can be a trespass, the wrongful act here was the broadcast, which occurred after the crew left the property and therefore cannot support a trespass action. Similarly, consent is an absolute defense to intrusion on seclusion. The court reasoned that Baugh's proper legal remedy for the deception is not in trespass or intrusion, but in her claims for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which the court allowed to proceed because the crew allegedly took advantage of her vulnerable state.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the distinct boundaries between different intentional torts in the context of investigative journalism. It establishes that, in California, consent fraudulently obtained is still valid consent for the purpose of defending against trespass and intrusion claims, effectively immunizing news crews from liability for the physical entry itself under those theories. The ruling redirects the legal injury from the physical act of entry to the deception used to gain it, channeling the plaintiff's remedy into claims like fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This provides news organizations a shield against trespass liability when they gain consensual entry, but keeps them accountable for deceptive newsgathering tactics and the harm they may cause.
