Roach v. Stern
675 N.Y.S.2d 133, 252 A.D.2d 488, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7998 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Handling and making crude remarks about a deceased person's cremated remains for entertainment purposes on a broadcast, against the express wishes of the deceased's family, can constitute conduct so extreme and outrageous as to support a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Facts:
- Deborah Roach, known as 'Debbie Tay', was a frequent guest on a radio show hosted by Howard Stern and died in April 1995.
- Her sister, plaintiff Melissa Roach Driscol, had her body cremated and gave a portion of the ashes to Tay's close friend, defendant Chaunce Hayden, with the understanding that he would 'preserve and honor' them in a private manner.
- Stern encouraged Hayden to appear on his radio show and bring Tay's cremated remains.
- Upon learning of this, Tay's brother, plaintiff Jeff Roach, telephoned the show's producer and the radio station manager to demand that they not proceed.
- Despite this demand, on July 18, 1995, Hayden brought the remains to the show.
- During the broadcast, Stern and other participants handled bone fragments from the remains, made crude remarks, and speculated about which body parts they were.
- The radio broadcast was also videotaped and later aired on a national cable television station.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, Melissa Roach Driscol and Jeff Roach, sued defendants Howard Stern, Infinity Broadcasting, Inc., and Chaunce Hayden in the Supreme Court, Kings County (a New York trial court).
- Defendants Howard Stern and Infinity Broadcasting, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint.
- The plaintiffs (as appellants) appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate 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 broadcasting a program where participants handle and make crude jokes about a deceased person's cremated remains, against the family's express wishes, constitute conduct so extreme and outrageous as to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York law?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (O'Brien, J. P., Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur)
Yes, this conduct is sufficient to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. While the standard for outrageous conduct is rigorous and difficult to satisfy, a jury could reasonably conclude that the manner in which Tay's remains were handled for entertainment purposes, against the express wishes of her family, went beyond the bounds of decent behavior. The court rejected the argument that Stern's reputation for vulgar humor or Tay's own public persona provided a defense, holding that the specific conduct of mishandling human remains could be deemed 'utterly intolerable in a civilized community' by a trier of fact. Therefore, the lower court erred in determining as a matter of law that the conduct was not sufficiently outrageous.
Dissenting - Krausman, J.
No, this conduct, while tasteless and offensive, does not meet the high legal standard for extreme and outrageous conduct required for this tort. The dissent argues that the context is critical: Debbie Tay achieved fame through her own outrageous appearances on Stern's show, and her friend brought the remains believing Tay 'would love this.' There was no indication Stern intended to cause the plaintiffs distress; in fact, the show was dedicated to Tay's memory. Given the 'rigorous, and difficult to satisfy' standard for outrageousness, which the New York Court of Appeals has consistently upheld, this conduct was not so extreme as to be 'utterly intolerable in a civilized community' and should have been dismissed as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that even in the context of 'shock jock' entertainment and with a public figure known for provocative behavior, there are limits to protected speech and conduct, particularly concerning the handling of human remains. By reversing the dismissal, the court affirmed that the question of 'outrageousness' in such a case is a factual issue for a jury, not a legal one for a judge to decide pre-trial. This ruling lowers the procedural bar for plaintiffs in similar IIED cases against media defendants, potentially exposing entertainers to greater liability for conduct that is grossly insensitive to the families of deceased individuals.
