Graves v. Warner Bros.
253 Mich. App. 486, 656 N.W.2d 195 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
There is no legal duty to protect a person from the criminal acts of a third party absent a special relationship, and any duty owed by a business invitor to an invitee ends when the relationship terminates. A defendant's conduct is not the legal cause of a plaintiff's harm if the third party's criminal act was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.
Facts:
- Jonathan Schmitz appeared on an episode of the Jenny Jones Show under the impression he was meeting a secret admirer.
- During the taping of the show, Scott Amedure revealed that he was Schmitz's secret admirer and had a 'secret crush' on him.
- Schmitz expressed that he was embarrassed and humiliated by this on-air revelation.
- Three days after the taping, Schmitz found a sexually suggestive note from Amedure on his front door.
- Schmitz then purchased a shotgun, drove to Amedure's trailer, and shot and killed Amedure.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Graves and Frank Amedure, Sr., as representatives of Scott Amedure's estate, filed a wrongful death action in a Michigan trial court against the Jenny Jones Show, Warner Bros., and Telepictures.
- The trial court denied defendants' motion for summary disposition.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding them $29,332,686.
- The trial court denied defendants' posttrial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
- Defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
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 television show have a legal duty to protect one guest from the subsequent violent criminal acts of another guest, where the show created a situation that foreseeably could have incited violence?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffin, J.
No. A television show does not have a legal duty to protect a guest from the violent criminal acts of another guest that occur days after their relationship as invitor-invitee has ended. The general rule is that there is no duty to protect another from the criminal acts of a third party without a special relationship. Here, the only potential special relationship was that of business invitor-invitee between the show and the guests, but this relationship, and any duty associated with it, ended when Schmitz and Amedure left the studio. The murder occurred three days later and hundreds of miles away, making it not imminent or foreseeable on the premises. Furthermore, characterizing the show's conduct as misfeasance does not create a duty, because Schmitz's violent criminal act was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the show's production; defendants were entitled to assume Schmitz would obey the law.
Dissenting - Murphy, P.J.
Yes. A television show may have a legal duty under these circumstances, and the issue of foreseeability was a question for the jury. This case should be analyzed as one of misfeasance (active misconduct) for creating a volatile situation, not nonfeasance (failure to protect), so the special relationship doctrine is inapplicable. Defendants used deceit and sensationalism to orchestrate a surprise that they knew would cause an emotional reaction. Given Schmitz's unknown but actual mental and emotional vulnerabilities, a reasonable jury could find that his violent reaction was a foreseeable result of the show's intentional actions, creating a duty of care towards Amedure.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the legal principle that there is no general duty to protect individuals from the unforeseeable criminal acts of third parties, even when a defendant's actions may have contributed to a volatile situation. It narrowly construes the 'special relationship' exception, emphasizing that for business invitees, any duty is confined to imminent, foreseeable risks on the premises and ends when the invitee leaves. The ruling sets a high bar for holding media companies liable for the subsequent, off-site violent actions of participants, effectively insulating producers from liability for emotional content unless they have specific knowledge of a person's propensity for violence.
