Miller v. National Broadcasting Co.
232 Cal. Rptr. 668, 187 Cal. App. 3d 1463, 69 A.L.R. 4th 1027 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment right to gather news does not provide immunity to the press from civil liability for torts, such as trespass and invasion of privacy, committed when unlawfully entering a private residence without consent, even when accompanying emergency personnel.
Facts:
- Dave Miller suffered a heart attack in his bedroom at the apartment he shared with his wife, Brownie Miller.
- A neighbor called for paramedics on Brownie Miller's behalf.
- A National Broadcasting Company (NBC) television camera crew, led by producer Ruben Norte, was filming a documentary on paramedics and accompanied them to the Miller home.
- The NBC crew entered the Millers' apartment and bedroom without seeking or obtaining consent from Brownie Miller.
- The crew filmed the paramedics' unsuccessful attempts to resuscitate Dave Miller.
- NBC later broadcast portions of the footage on its nightly news and in a promotional commercial.
- Dave Miller's wife, Brownie Miller, and his daughter, Marlene Miller Belloni, later saw the footage on television, causing them severe emotional distress.
- Dave Miller was transported to a hospital where he died that evening.
Procedural Posture:
- Brownie Miller and Marlene Miller Belloni filed a complaint against NBC, Ruben Norte, and the City of Los Angeles in the Superior Court of California (trial court) for trespass, invasion of privacy, and infliction of emotional distress.
- After discovery and amendments to the complaint, the defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The superior court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issues of fact and ruling that the plaintiffs had no actionable claims.
- The superior court subsequently denied the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.
- The plaintiffs, Brownie Miller and Marlene Miller Belloni, appealed the summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
- Prior to the appellate decision, the appeal against the City of Los Angeles was dismissed by stipulation.
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 the First Amendment's protection for newsgathering immunize a television news crew from liability for trespass, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress when they enter a private home without consent to film paramedics treating a dying person?
Opinions:
Majority - Hanson, J.
No. The First Amendment does not grant newsgatherers immunity from torts committed during the course of their work, and a television crew's unauthorized entry into a private home constitutes an actionable trespass and invasion of privacy. For the wife, Brownie Miller, the claims may proceed. The crew's unauthorized entry was a trespass, and damages for such an intentional tort can include compensation for all proximately caused detriment, including the emotional distress from the subsequent broadcast. The entry also constituted an invasion of her personal right to privacy by intrusion, as reasonable people could find the filming of her husband's dying moments in their home to be 'highly offensive.' This conduct could also be deemed 'extreme and outrageous' by a jury, supporting a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. For the daughter, Marlene Miller Belloni, the claims fail. She was not present during the intrusion and did not reside there, so her personal privacy rights were not violated. Her claims are based on her relationship to the victim of the broadcast, and the law, as established in cases like Flynn v. Higham, does not permit recovery for relatives who are unwillingly brought into the limelight but are not the direct victims of the tortious conduct. The court rejected NBC's defense that a call for emergency services implies consent for media entry, stating that one does not 'open the door' to the press by seeking medical aid.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical limitation on the First Amendment's protection for newsgathering, affirming that the media is subject to general tort laws, particularly trespass and invasion of privacy. It solidifies the principle that the sanctity of a private home outweighs the media's interest in documenting a newsworthy event occurring within it without consent. The court's distinction between the wife's direct claim (as a resident whose home was invaded) and the daughter's indirect claim (as an affected relative) clarifies the requirement of direct victimhood for intrusion and related torts, preventing a potentially limitless expansion of liability to all relatives affected by a broadcast.
