James v. Meow Media, Inc.
300 F.3d 683 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Producers of media content, such as video games and movies, do not owe a legal duty of care to protect third parties from the violent criminal acts of those who consume their media, as such acts are not legally foreseeable. Furthermore, the intangible ideas and images within these media are not considered 'products' for the purposes of a strict products liability claim.
Facts:
- Michael Carneal, a 14-year-old student, regularly played violent interactive video games, including 'Doom' and 'Quake'.
- Carneal also watched the movie 'The Basketball Diaries,' which contained a scene in which the protagonist dreams of killing his teacher and classmates.
- Additionally, Carneal visited various websites produced by the defendant internet content-provider firms.
- On December 1, 1997, Carneal brought a pistol and shotguns to the lobby of Heath High School in Paducah, Kentucky.
- Carneal shot into a crowd of students, killing Jessica James, Kayce Steger, and Nicole Hadley, and wounding five others.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents and estate administrators of the deceased students (James) filed suit against several media companies in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
- The complaint alleged negligence, strict products liability, and RICO violations.
- The defendant companies filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed all of James's claims.
- James, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal of the negligence and product liability claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Kentucky law, do producers of video games, movies, and internet content owe a legal duty to protect third parties from the violent criminal acts of individuals who consume their media?
Opinions:
Majority - Boggs, Circuit Judge
No. Producers of media content do not owe a legal duty to protect third parties from the violent acts of consumers because such harm is not reasonably foreseeable. Under Kentucky law, the existence of a duty of care is a question of law for the court and is fundamentally a policy determination. Carneal's violent rampage was an idiosyncratic reaction that was too remote a consequence of his consumption of the defendants' media to be legally foreseeable. Policy considerations weigh against imposing such a duty, as individuals are generally entitled to assume third parties will not commit intentional criminal acts, and holding media producers liable would raise serious First Amendment concerns by attaching tort liability to protected, non-obscene expression that does not constitute incitement under the Brandenburg test. Finally, the ideas and images communicated by the media are not tangible 'products' that can be subject to a strict products liability claim.
Analysis:
This decision significantly shields media producers from liability for 'copycat' or media-inspired violent acts committed by consumers. It reinforces the high bar for foreseeability in tort law, classifying such violent acts as legally unforeseeable and idiosyncratic rather than a probable consequence of consuming violent content. The court's analysis also solidifies the distinction between a tangible product (like a cassette) and the intangible, expressive ideas it contains, preventing the expansion of products liability doctrine into the realm of protected speech. By invoking First Amendment concerns, the opinion signals that courts should avoid using tort law to regulate media content that does not meet the narrow legal definition of incitement.
Unlock the full brief for James v. Meow Media, Inc.