KOVR-TV, Inc. v. Superior Court
37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 431, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 628, 31 Cal. App. 4th 1023 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury may find a television reporter's conduct "extreme and outrageous" for purposes of intentional infliction of emotional distress if the reporter deliberately manipulates the emotions of young children by suddenly revealing a horrific tragedy to them for perceived journalistic advantage, even if the information conveyed is truthful.
Facts:
- On September 3, 1993, Debbie Weber, a neighbor of the Mehrkens and Whittles, murdered her two young children and then committed suicide.
- The murdered Weber children were friends with Jennifer Whittle (11), Amanda Whittle (7), and Mandy Mehrkens (5).
- Later that same day, Jennifer, Amanda, and Mandy were at Mandy’s home, unaware of the Weber family tragedy.
- Mark Saxenmeyer, a KOVR-TV reporter, and a cameraman came to Mandy’s home, opened the screen door, turned on bright photo lights, and began filming the minors.
- No parents or other adults were present in the home with the minors when Saxenmeyer conducted the interview.
- Saxenmeyer questioned the minors and then abruptly informed them that "the mom has killed the two little kids and herself."
Procedural Posture:
- Amanda Mehrkens, Jennifer and Amanda Whittle (through guardians ad litem), and their parents (Kim Mehrkens, John Whittle, Alice Whittle) commenced an action against KOVR-TV, Inc., and Mark Saxenmeyer in superior court (trial court) for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy.
- The trial court sustained defendants' demurrer without leave to amend as to the negligent infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy counts, leaving only the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for the minor plaintiffs.
- Defendants KOVR-TV, Inc., and Mark Saxenmeyer moved for summary judgment on the remaining count, arguing their conduct was not extreme and outrageous as a matter of law.
- The superior court (trial court) denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact existed as to whether the conduct was extreme and outrageous, based on a review of the videotape.
- Defendants (petitioners) filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, seeking to direct the superior court to vacate its denial of their motion for summary judgment and to grant the motion.
- The Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ and stayed proceedings in the superior court.
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 reporter's uninvited, intrusive encounter with young children in their private home, involving filming without adult consent and the abrupt disclosure of a neighbor's murder-suicide, create a triable issue of fact as to whether the reporter's conduct was "extreme and outrageous," thereby precluding summary judgment on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Puglia, P. J.
Yes, a triable issue of fact exists regarding whether the reporter's conduct was "extreme and outrageous," thereby precluding summary judgment. The court affirmed that the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress require (1) extreme and outrageous conduct with intent or reckless disregard, (2) severe emotional distress, and (3) causation. While defendants did not contest severe distress or causation for purposes of the summary judgment motion, they argued their conduct was not extreme and outrageous as a matter of law. The court, reviewing the videotaped interview, observed that while the reporter's tone was nonthreatening, the encounter itself was an uninvited and intrusive entry into a private residence, involving bright lights, a microphone, and the filming of children of "tender years" without adult consent. The minors were suddenly informed of a horrific tragedy concerning their friends. The court reasoned that a jury could reasonably infer that the reporter deliberately informed the minors of the deaths in "the hope it would elicit an emotional reaction that would be 'newsworthy,' e.g., suitable to redeem a promise of 'film at eleven.'" Such conduct, attempting to manipulate children's emotions for journalistic advantage, could be found to "go beyond all possible bounds of decency" and exceed what is tolerated in a civilized community. The court rejected the defendants' First Amendment defense, emphasizing that journalists are not immune from liability for torts committed during newsgathering, especially when the conduct involves "shameless exploitation of defenseless children" rather than legitimate news dissemination. The reporter's declaration denying intent was also deemed insufficient to compel summary judgment, particularly when an individual's state of mind is a material fact, and "reckless disregard" can be inferred from a lack of thought regarding the consequences for young children.
Concurring - Sparks, J.
Justice Sparks concurred with the majority opinion, aligning with its reasoning that a triable issue of fact exists regarding the "extreme and outrageous" nature of the defendants' conduct and that summary judgment was properly denied.
Concurring - Scotland, J.
Justice Scotland concurred with the majority opinion, agreeing that the evidence presented in the summary judgment proceedings showed a triable issue of fact regarding the alleged extreme and outrageous conduct, thus justifying the denial of the motion for summary judgment.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of newsgathering practices, particularly when they involve vulnerable individuals like children. It reinforces that media entities and their employees are not immune from general tort laws, even when engaged in reporting truthful information. The ruling underscores that the "extreme and outrageous" standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress is highly fact-specific and can encompass manipulative journalistic tactics that exploit tragic circumstances to elicit emotional reactions for broadcast. This decision serves as a critical precedent, compelling media organizations to consider ethical boundaries and potential legal liability when aggressive newsgathering risks deliberately causing emotional distress or demonstrates reckless disregard for the well-being of subjects, especially minors.
