Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Mobile Video Tapes, Inc.
43 S.W.3d 40, 2001 WL 167986 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A media defendant may be granted summary judgment on claims of libel and invasion of privacy if the broadcast does not identify the plaintiffs or depict them in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. While a trial court's failure to submit a negligence standard for libel for private figures constitutes error, it is harmless if the jury finds no libel occurred; furthermore, Texas does not recognize 'negligent invasion of privacy' as a cause of action, as invasion of privacy is an intentional tort.
Facts:
- Joe Martinez, the band director at Port Isabel High School, placed a clandestine video camera in an area where female students changed clothes for band practice, intending to discover who was stealing from student belongings.
- Some of the videotapes made by Martinez were discovered in a garbage dumpster in Brownsville by an anonymous finder.
- The anonymous finder played the videotapes and discovered they contained scenes of Martinez adjusting the camera, the assistant band director (Eugene Catrell) going through student belongings, and female students changing clothes.
- On October 8, 1995, the finder gave these videotapes to Mobile Video Tapes, Inc. d/b/a KRGV-TV.
- On the morning of October 9, 1995, parents learned of the videotapes and KRGV's possession, and called the television station to ask that the videotapes not be aired.
- On the evening of October 9, 1995, KRGV broadcast segments of the videotapes showing the band director and assistant band director, along with distorted images of some students changing clothes, describing them only as students changing for band and cheerleading practice without identifying them by name or address.
- KRGV subsequently broadcast segments of the videotapes on various other occasions as new developments in the story occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- D. Doe, F. Doe, H. Doe, I. Doe, S. Doe, C. Doe, and E. Doe, along with their parents as next friends, sued KRGV, Raymond Alexander, and Rick Diaz in a trial court for libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The defendants (KRGV, Alexander, Diaz) filed an initial motion for summary judgment against all plaintiffs, which the trial court denied.
- The defendants subsequently filed a second motion for summary judgment specifically against D. Doe, F. Doe, H. Doe, I. Doe, and S. Doe (summary judgment appellants) and their parents as next friends.
- The trial court granted this second motion for summary judgment on September 15, 1997.
- The claims of the remaining minor children, C. Doe and E. Doe (trial appellants), and their parents as next friends, proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury found no libel and no invasion of privacy in favor of the defendants against C. Doe and E. Doe.
- The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment against C. Doe and E. Doe.
- Both the summary judgment appellants and the trial appellants appealed these judgments to the Court of Appeals of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a trial court err in granting summary judgment against minor plaintiffs who allege libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, when the defendant media company presents evidence that it did not broadcast images of those specific plaintiffs in a state of undress or identify them by name? 2. Does a trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to submit a jury question on the negligence standard of liability for libel in a case involving private figures? 3. Is 'negligent invasion of privacy' a recognized cause of action in Texas? 4. Does a trial court abuse its discretion by admitting partial broadcast evidence (scripts and reporter packages) when full recordings were destroyed in the ordinary course of business, and was the jury's finding against libel and invasion of privacy factually sufficient?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hinojosa
1. No, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment against D. Doe, F. Doe, H. Doe, I. Doe, and S. Doe (the summary judgment appellants). The summary judgment evidence showed that KRGV never broadcast graphic images, distorted or otherwise, of these specific minor children in a state of undress, nor did it broadcast their names or addresses. Since each cause of action alleged (defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress) requires the defendant’s actions to be about or directed at the appellants, and the evidence showed KRGV’s broadcasts did not meet this standard for these specific Does, summary judgment was proper. 2. Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by not instructing the jury on the negligence standard of liability for defamation/libel, as Texas law, pursuant to Foster v. Laredo Newspapers, Inc., adopts a negligence standard for defamation cases brought by non-public figures against broadcasters. However, this error was harmless under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.1 because the jury first found "no libel" at all, meaning they would not have reached a subsequent question on whether any libel was negligently committed. 3. No, "negligent invasion of privacy" is not a recognized cause of action in Texas. The court explicitly declines to adopt such a cause of action, reiterating that invasion of privacy has historically been recognized as an intentional tort. It is inappropriate to allow recovery for intentional conduct under a negligence theory, a position consistent with Childers v. A.S. and Billings v. Atkinson. 4. No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting portions of the broadcasts (scripts, reporter packages, rundowns). The full broadcast tapes were destroyed in the ordinary course of business, not in bad faith, thus satisfying the best evidence rule exception (Texas Rule of Evidence 1004). Furthermore, the jury's "no" answer to the libel and invasion of privacy questions was not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. There was conflicting testimony regarding whether captions like "Naked Tapes" were used, KRGV distorted images and did not name students, and the story concerned a matter of legitimate public concern (the welfare of minor children and potential crimes by school personnel). The jury, having heard all evidence and assessed witness credibility, made a finding that was not clearly wrong or manifestly unjust.
Analysis:
This case offers several important clarifications for media liability in Texas. It affirms that media defendants can secure summary judgment if they can demonstrate that the broadcasted material did not identify or depict the specific plaintiffs in a way that would be actionable. Critically, it establishes that while a negligence standard applies to libel claims brought by private figures against broadcasters, the omission of a jury instruction on this standard is harmless if the jury, in the first instance, finds no libel occurred. Most significantly, the court definitively rejects the recognition of 'negligent invasion of privacy' as a tort in Texas, solidifying invasion of privacy as an intentional tort. This distinction guides future litigation by emphasizing the mental state required for such claims.
