Williams v. City of Minneola
1991 WL 9576, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 711, 575 So. 2d 683 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Florida's Public Records Act does not immunize government employees from tort liability for the gratuitous, unnecessary, or abusive display of public records, particularly images of a deceased person, where such conduct is found to be reckless and outrageous and causes severe emotional distress to immediate family members, even without physical impact or their presence.
Facts:
- Fourteen-year-old Glenn Williams died of an apparent drug overdose, prompting an investigation by officers of the Minneola Police Department.
- On November 29, 1986, the day after Glenn's death, Officer Cason, on orders from Minneola Police Chief Joseph Brennan, took 35mm still photographs of Glenn Williams' autopsy to document evidence.
- Officer Lovell, also participating in the investigation, made an approximately hour-long videotape of the autopsy using a borrowed video camera.
- Officers Cason, Lameida, and Lovell took the videotape to Chief Brennan's home, where they watched about five minutes of it.
- Officer Lovell then took the videotape home, and the next evening, he, Officer Poole, Officer Davis (briefly), and John Warrington (a civilian acquaintance) viewed the tape at Lovell's home.
- In a separate incident, Chief Brennan showed the still photographs of the autopsy to Art Brewer, a civilian who was cleaning the chief's office, by passing them to him and asking, 'Do you want something to eat?'
- Earlier in February 1987, Chief Brennan informed Glenn Williams' mother and sister (Linda Williams, et al.) about the videotaping and the viewing at Lovell's home.
- Glenn Williams' mother and sister, the appellants, suffered emotional distress upon learning of these displays.
Procedural Posture:
- Glenn Williams' mother and sister (appellants) sued the City of Minneola, the Minneola Police Department, Chief Joseph Brennan, and Officers Cason, Lameida, and Lovell (appellees) in a trial court.
- The appellants' claims included theories of intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with a dead body.
- The trial court granted final orders of summary judgment in favor of the appellees (defendants) on all alleged tort theories.
- Linda Williams, et al. (plaintiffs below) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
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 Florida law permit a cause of action for reckless or intentional infliction of emotional distress against government employees who display autopsy photographs or videotapes of a deceased person to unauthorized individuals, and does the public records status of such images immunize these employees from tort liability for such displays?
Opinions:
Majority - Dauksch, J.
Yes, Florida law does permit a cause of action for reckless or intentional infliction of emotional distress against government employees who display autopsy photographs or videotapes of a deceased person to unauthorized individuals, and the public records status of such images does not automatically immunize these employees from tort liability for such displays. The court found that neither the Public Records Act nor the Florida Constitution grants custodians protection from tort liability for intentionally communicating public records unless a bona fide request was made or it was necessary for official business. It held that allowing such immunity would pervert public policy, which aims for governmental accountability, not to expose the private lives of citizens. The court emphasized a special solicitude for the emotional vulnerability of survivors regarding improper behavior toward a loved one's dead body, stating that in this unique area, conduct that might otherwise be considered minor can become 'indecent, outrageous and intolerable.' In cases of intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, physical impact or the plaintiff's presence during the act is not required for recovery, as the outrageous nature of the conduct itself serves as a guarantee of genuine mental distress. The court affirmed that the tort of tortious interference with a dead body requires an action affecting the physical body itself (e.g., mutilation, withholding), not merely the display of its image. It also affirmed that invasion of privacy generally applies only to living persons and requires widespread publicity, which was not conclusively shown here, though it recognized an exception for independent violations of family members' privacy where conduct is egregious.
Concurring - Goshorn, J.
I concur with the majority opinion.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part - Griffin, J.
Yes, I agree that summary judgment was improperly entered against Linda Williams, et al., concerning the individual defendants for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion that the tort of interference with a dead body is inapplicable to the facts of this case. I believe the revulsion directed at the appellees' conduct centers on the exhibition of images of the deceased's body, which is what the tort of interference with a dead body should address. This tort acknowledges society's deeply felt expectation that dead bodies be treated with respect and provides a remedy for the mental anguish of survivors. There is no material difference between publicly exhibiting the physical body and exhibiting a videotape of the same autopsied body, especially when the alleged tortfeasor was entrusted with access to the body through a statutory right. If the exhibition of the videotape of Glenn Williams' body being autopsied had no connection to any purpose authorized by law, it should constitute tortious interference with the survivor's right to protect the dignity of the dead body.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the limits of public records immunity and expanding the application of intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, especially in sensitive contexts involving deceased individuals. It establishes that while autopsy images may be public records, their gratuitous or abusive display by government personnel is not protected from tort liability. The decision underscores society's deep-seated reverence for the deceased and the heightened emotional vulnerability of bereaved family members, making certain acts, like the disrespectful handling of a loved one's images, inherently 'outrageous.' This ruling provides a crucial avenue for redress for families experiencing severe emotional trauma from such conduct, reinforcing that government transparency does not grant officials license for malicious or reckless behavior with sensitive information.
