Lexplug logoLexplug

Daily Times Democrat v. Graham

Supreme Court of Alabama
162 So.2d 474, 276 Ala. 380 (1964)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Publishing an embarrassing photograph of a private individual, taken without consent, constitutes an actionable invasion of privacy if it lacks legitimate news value, even if the incident occurred in a public place.


Facts:

  • On October 9, 1961, Rosa Lee Graham, a 44-year-old housewife, attended the Cullman County Fair with her two young sons.
  • Graham accompanied her sons into the 'Fun House' attraction.
  • As she was exiting the attraction, hidden air jets blew her dress up over her head, exposing her body from the waist down, except for her underwear.
  • Without Graham's knowledge or consent, a photographer for the Daily Times Democrat newspaper captured a photograph of this moment.
  • Four days later, the Daily Times Democrat published this photograph on the front page of its newspaper.
  • The newspaper was distributed throughout Graham's community, and acquaintances recognized her in the photograph, causing her significant embarrassment and emotional distress.

Procedural Posture:

  • The plaintiff, Rosa Lee Graham, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Daily Times Democrat, in an Alabama trial court for invasion of privacy.
  • The case was tried before a jury, which found in favor of Graham and awarded her $4,166.00 in damages.
  • The trial court entered a judgment based on the jury's verdict.
  • The defendant newspaper, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.

Locked

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 newspaper's publication of a photograph depicting a private individual in an embarrassing and indecent pose, taken without her knowledge or consent at a public fair, constitute an actionable invasion of privacy?


Opinions:

Majority - Harwood, Justice

Yes. The publication of the photograph constitutes an actionable invasion of privacy. The court rejected the newspaper's defense that the photograph was newsworthy, stating that it had no legitimate news value and disclosed nothing the public was entitled to be informed about. It also dismissed the argument that no privacy right exists for events in a public place, holding that a person does not forfeit their right to privacy when they are involuntarily and momentarily caught in an embarrassing or indecent situation. The court reasoned that a mechanical application of the 'public scene' exception would lead to an 'illogical, wrong, and unjust' result, especially when the photograph could be considered obscene and offensive to a person of ordinary sensibilities.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the limits of the 'newsworthiness' and 'public place' defenses in invasion of privacy torts. It establishes that the right to privacy can protect individuals even when they are in public, particularly when they are victims of an embarrassing misfortune that is not a matter of legitimate public concern. The ruling creates a precedent that the nature and decency of the published material can override the location of the event, thereby protecting private citizens from media exploitation of their personal humiliation. This case sets a boundary for freedom of the press, suggesting that 'common decency' can limit what is considered publishable news about private individuals.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Daily Times Democrat v. Graham (1964) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Daily Times Democrat v. Graham