Winstead v. Sweeney
205 Mich. App. 664, 517 N.W.2d 874 (1994)
Rule of Law:
When assessing a claim for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of embarrassing private facts, the 'newsworthy' defense is a mixed question of law and fact, requiring a court to evaluate the specific facts revealed about the plaintiff, not just the general topic, to determine if reasonable minds could differ, in which case the issue should be submitted to a jury.
Facts:
- The Detroit News ran an advertisement soliciting information for an article about unique love relationships involving friends or family members of former mates.
- Plaintiff’s former husband responded to the advertisement and shared details of his relationship with plaintiff and a couple with whom they were friends.
- Defendant Ann Sweeney authored an article in The Detroit News that included the former husband’s story, identifying the persons involved only by their first names: 'Denise,' 'Tim,' and 'Linda.'
- The article stated that 'Denise' had several abortions, engaged in partner swapping, and was involved in a surrogate parenting relationship with her former husband, 'Tim,' and her maid of honor, 'Linda,' because 'Denise' was unable to have children.
- Plaintiff alleged that her current husband, friends, family, and boss had not known about these specific events before the article was published.
- Plaintiff further alleged that upon reading the article, these individuals immediately equated plaintiff with 'Denise,' leading to her embarrassment.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint in Wayne Circuit Court, alleging invasion of privacy by publication of embarrassing private facts and gross negligence against defendants The Detroit News and Ann Sweeney.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim) and 2.116(C)(10) (no genuine issue of material fact), raising the affirmative defense of privilege under common law, the Michigan Constitution, and the First Amendment, asserting the information was 'newsworthy.'
- The Wayne Circuit Court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, concluding that the newsworthy defense applied as a matter of law and dismissing plaintiff's complaint.
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 newsworthiness defense in an invasion of privacy claim for public disclosure of embarrassing private facts always present a question of law for the court, or can it be a mixed question of law and fact for the jury, requiring an evaluation of the specific facts disclosed about the plaintiff rather than solely the general topic?
Opinions:
Majority - J. H. Gillis, Sr.
No, the newsworthiness defense in an invasion of privacy claim for public disclosure of embarrassing private facts does not always present a question of law for the court; it can be a mixed question of law and fact for the jury if reasonable minds could differ regarding the newsworthiness of the specific facts disclosed about the plaintiff. To sustain a claim for public disclosure of embarrassing private facts, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the disclosed information is highly offensive to a reasonable person and is of no legitimate public concern, as adopted from the Restatement of Torts, 2d, § 652D. While the First Amendment protects the media from such actions when information is of legitimate public concern (i.e., newsworthy), this privilege is not unlimited. The court cited the Restatement, which defines 'legitimate public concern' to include customary 'news' and information for education or enlightenment (comments g, j), but also cautions that the line is drawn when publicity becomes 'morbid and sensational prying into private lives for its own sake,' rather than information the public is entitled to (comment h). The court found that the trial court erred by focusing solely on the newsworthiness of the topic (unique love relationships) rather than evaluating the specific facts revealed about the plaintiff (abortions, partner swapping, infertility). Citing Virgil v Time, Inc., the court concluded that the public interest question is a mixed question of law and fact, and where reasonable minds could differ on community mores and their application to the facts, a jury function is appropriate. This approach aligns with the Michigan Supreme Court's inclination in Beaumont v Brown to allow juries to consider elements of the tort when fact questions remain. The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the former husband's right to tell his story absolved them from liability, noting that a media defendant's privilege is limited by newsworthiness, especially regarding non-consenting individuals. The court emphasized that simply because the former husband revealed private facts to defendants, it does not automatically absolve the defendants from liability for publishing information that may prove to be unnewsworthy about a nonconsenting person.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the 'newsworthiness' defense in Michigan privacy actions, moving away from a broad interpretation that could lead to automatic dismissals. By mandating an evaluation of the specific facts disclosed about a plaintiff, not just the general topic, it imposes a higher burden on media defendants to justify the publication of intimate details. This ruling enhances protection for individuals' privacy rights against media intrusion, particularly when private information is obtained from third parties, and it empowers juries to serve as arbiters of community mores regarding legitimate public interest versus 'morbid and sensational prying.'
