Green v. Chicago Tribune Co.
675 N.E.2d 249 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Publishing highly personal and intimate details of a private citizen's grief, even when related to a newsworthy event, may constitute an actionable invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress if a jury could find the specific details are not of legitimate public concern and their publication is highly offensive.
Facts:
- On December 30, 1992, Laura Green's son, Calvin, was taken to Cook County Hospital for a bullet wound.
- Chicago Tribune staffers photographed Calvin during his emergency treatment without Green's permission.
- After resuscitation efforts failed, Calvin was moved to a private hospital room.
- A Tribune reporter asked Green for a statement regarding her son's death, and she refused.
- Tribune staffers then entered the private hospital room without authorization, photographed Calvin's body, and temporarily prevented Green from entering.
- While in the room, the Tribune staffers listened to Green's private statements to her deceased son.
- On January 1, 1993, the Tribune published a front-page article about Chicago's homicide rate, which included a photograph of Calvin's dead body and direct quotes of Green's private statements to him.
- On January 3, 1993, the Tribune published a separate article containing a photograph of Calvin undergoing medical treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Laura Green filed an amended complaint against the Chicago Tribune Company in an Illinois trial court for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and battery.
- The trial court granted the Tribune's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Green, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court, with the Tribune as the appellee.
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 complaint state a valid cause of action for invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts) and intentional infliction of emotional distress when it alleges a newspaper published a photograph of a deceased minor and his mother's private, grief-stricken statements to him, which were obtained intrusively after the mother expressly refused to comment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Brien
Yes. A complaint states a valid cause of action for both invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress under these circumstances. For the invasion of privacy claim regarding the January 1 article, the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded all four elements of the public disclosure of private facts tort. The statements were made in a private hospital room after she refused to comment, making them private. A jury could find the publication of a mother's intimate expressions of grief to her dead son, along with his photo, to be highly offensive. Crucially, a jury could also find that these specific, intimate details were not of legitimate public concern, even though the general topic of gang violence is, and instead constituted 'morbid and sensational prying.' The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is also valid, as a jury could find the Tribune's conduct—barring Green from her son's room to take photos and then publishing them against her expressed wishes—was extreme and outrageous. However, claims based on the January 3 article fail because the right to privacy is personal, and that publication did not feature the plaintiff, Laura Green.
Dissenting - Justice Cahill
No. The trial court's dismissal of the complaint should be affirmed because the published material, while tragic, was a matter of legitimate public concern protected by the First Amendment. The majority improperly merges the tort of intrusion upon seclusion with public disclosure; the method of newsgathering, while potentially actionable as a trespass, does not render newsworthy information private. Calvin Green and his mother became involuntary public figures in a story of significant public interest—gang violence. The photograph and quotes provided a humanizing element to the story, and it is not the role of a jury to second-guess the editorial judgment of a newspaper. Furthermore, the Tribune's conduct did not rise to the high level of 'extreme and outrageous' required to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Illinois law.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the broad First Amendment protection afforded to media defendants reporting on newsworthy events. It establishes that while a general topic may be of legitimate public concern, the specific, intimate details used to illustrate it are not automatically protected. The court empowers the jury to act as the conscience of the community, drawing the line between legitimate news reporting and 'morbid and sensational prying.' This ruling places a greater burden on news organizations to consider the private suffering of individuals involved in tragedies, potentially limiting their editorial discretion in how they portray victims.
Unlock the full brief for Green v. Chicago Tribune Co.