Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc.

Supreme Court of California
74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843, 955 P.2d 469, 18 Cal. 4th 200 (1998)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The First Amendment provides a broad privilege to the press to publish truthful, newsworthy information, even if it is private, but it does not provide a privilege to commit tortious intrusions into private places, conversations, or matters while gathering that news.

Facts:

Ruth and Wayne Shulman were in a car that flew off a public highway and overturned in a drainage ditch, leaving them trapped inside.
Ruth Shulman was severely injured and pinned under the vehicle, requiring extrication by rescue personnel.
A rescue helicopter from Mercy Air was dispatched, and a camera operator, Joel Cooke, employed by Group W Productions, accompanied the medical crew to film the rescue for a television show.
The flight nurse, Laura Carnahan, wore a wireless microphone that recorded her conversations with Ruth Shulman and other rescuers.
Cooke videotaped the extrication of the Shulmans at the accident scene and continued filming them inside the helicopter during their transport to the hospital.
Ruth Shulman was disoriented and in distress, making statements such as "I just want to die."
The Shulmans did not know they were being filmed for television and did not consent to the recording or broadcast.
The edited footage, including Ruth's appearance and recorded statements, was later broadcast on the television show 'On Scene: Emergency Response'.

Procedural Posture:

Ruth and Wayne Shulman sued Group W Productions, Inc., and 4MN Productions in a California trial court for two types of invasion of privacy: publication of private facts and intrusion.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing their newsgathering and broadcasting activities were protected by the First Amendment.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that the broadcast was newsworthy as a matter of law and therefore constitutionally protected.
The Shulmans, as appellants, appealed the summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal reversed in part, finding triable issues of fact existed for Ruth's private facts claim and both plaintiffs' intrusion claims concerning the events inside the helicopter, while affirming there was no reasonable expectation of privacy at the public accident scene.
The defendants petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review.

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 media defendant's conduct of videotaping an accident victim inside a medical helicopter and recording her confidential conversations with medical personnel constitute an actionable tort of intrusion, even if the broadcast of the resulting footage is protected from a 'publication of private facts' claim by the newsworthiness doctrine?

Opinions:

Majority - Werdegar, J.

No, as to the publication of private facts claim; Yes, as to the intrusion claim. The broadcast of newsworthy material is constitutionally privileged, but the press has no special constitutional privilege to engage in tortious intrusions to gather news. For the private facts claim, the broadcast was of legitimate public concern (newsworthy) as a matter of law. The subject of automobile accidents and emergency rescue services is inherently newsworthy. The specific images of Ruth Shulman's injuries and her distraught statements were substantially relevant to the newsworthy subject matter, illustrating the challenges of emergency medical care. So long as the private facts bear a logical relationship to a newsworthy topic and are not intrusive in great disproportion to their relevance, their publication is protected. For the intrusion claim, triable issues of fact exist. The tort requires an (1) intrusion into a private place or conversation that is (2) highly offensive to a reasonable person. A reasonable expectation of privacy can exist in a medical transport helicopter, which is akin to an ambulance or hospital room. Likewise, a patient has a reasonable expectation of privacy in her conversations with medical providers. A jury could find that placing a hidden microphone on a nurse to record a vulnerable patient's conversations and filming inside the helicopter was a highly offensive intrusion, regardless of the newsworthy motive.

Concurring - Kennard, J.

Yes, but with reservations. While concurring that summary judgment was proper on the private facts claim, this opinion expresses concern over the 'newsworthiness' standard. The test requires courts to make subjective, content-based judgments about what is of 'legitimate' public interest versus 'morbid' curiosity, which creates significant tension with First Amendment doctrine that disfavors content-based restrictions on truthful speech. The opinion questions whether prior California case law in this area can survive more recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions and suggests the court should continue to resolve these conflicts on a case-by-case basis rather than through a broad, potentially unconstitutional, 'newsworthiness' rule.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Chin, J.

No, as to the intrusion claim. This opinion concurs with the majority's dismissal of the private facts claim but dissents from its decision to allow the intrusion claim to proceed. The defendants' conduct was not 'highly offensive to a reasonable person.' Their motive was to obtain an accurate and newsworthy depiction of a rescue, they did not interfere with medical efforts, and the resulting broadcast was educational rather than tawdry. The recording of conversations in a setting where others could hear does not automatically become 'highly offensive' simply because the subject was unaware she was being recorded.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Brown, J.

Yes, as to the private facts claim. This opinion concurs that the intrusion claim should proceed but dissents from the dismissal of the private facts claim. The majority abandoned the established 'Kapellas' test for newsworthiness, which properly balances the social value of the facts, the depth of the intrusion, and the voluntariness of the plaintiff's public position. Under that test, a jury could find the broadcast was not newsworthy because showing Ruth's private despair had little social value, the intrusion was profound, and her involvement was completely involuntary. The new 'logical relationship' test improperly sacrifices personal privacy whenever a logical connection to a newsworthy topic exists, even if the information was obtained unlawfully.

Analysis:

This case establishes a critical distinction in privacy law between the act of newsgathering and the act of publication. It affirms that the First Amendment provides robust protection for the publication of truthful, newsworthy information, giving substantial deference to editorial judgment through a 'logical relationship' test. However, it decisively rejects the notion of a special 'newsgathering privilege,' holding that journalists are subject to the same generally applicable laws as citizens, including the tort of intrusion. This creates a dual-standard for media defendants: their published content receives significant protection, but their methods of obtaining that content do not and can be scrutinized under the 'highly offensive' standard for intrusion.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (1998)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"