Zamora v. Columbia Broadcasting System
480 F. Supp. 199, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8483, 5 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2109 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Television broadcasters do not have a legal duty to prevent harm caused by a viewer's violent criminal acts, which are allegedly the result of the viewer's cumulative, voluntary exposure to unspecified violent programming, as imposing such a duty would be against public policy and would violate the First Amendment.
Facts:
- From the age of five, Ronny Zamora extensively watched television programming containing violence broadcast by the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), and American Broadcasting Company (ABC).
- Zamora's family alleged that this extensive viewing caused him to become involuntarily addicted to and 'completely subliminally intoxicated' by television violence.
- This exposure allegedly led Zamora to develop a sociopathic personality, become desensitized to violent behavior, and become a danger to himself and others.
- On June 4, 1977, at age 15, Ronny Zamora shot and killed his 83-year-old neighbor, Elinor Haggart.
- The lawsuit did not allege that any specific program or broadcast incited Zamora to commit the murder.
- The lawsuit also did not specify when, over the ten-year period of viewing, the networks' alleged duty arose or was breached.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronny Zamora and his parents filed a lawsuit for damages against National Broadcasting Company, Columbia Broadcasting System, and American Broadcasting Company in the United States District Court, a federal trial court.
- The defendant television networks filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss but also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.
- The plaintiffs elected not to amend the complaint, which, by the terms of the court's prior order, made the dismissal a final judgment.
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 television broadcaster owe a legal duty of care to prevent a minor viewer from committing a criminal act, allegedly as a result of becoming 'subliminally intoxicated' by years of viewing unspecified violent television programming?
Opinions:
Majority - Hoeveler, District Judge
No. Television broadcasters do not owe a legal duty of care to prevent a viewer from committing a criminal act allegedly resulting from long-term exposure to violent programming. The court reasoned on two primary grounds: the absence of a legal duty under tort law and the protections of the First Amendment. First, the court found that creating such a duty would be against public policy, as it would provide no recognizable standard for the television industry to follow and would expose broadcasters to liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class. The court noted that the intervening criminal act of the plaintiff breaks the chain of causation, and creating such a wide expansion in tort law is not warranted. Second, the court held that imposing civil liability would act as a restraint on the defendants' First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs' claim did not fall into any of the narrowly limited classes of unprotected speech, such as obscenity or libel. Critically, the complaint failed to allege that the broadcasts constituted 'incitement' to imminent lawless action, which is the controlling standard. A generalized claim based on the cumulative effect of unspecified 'violence' is insufficient to overcome First Amendment protections.
Analysis:
This case is significant for rejecting the novel legal theory of 'television intoxication' as a basis for negligence. The court's decision reinforces the high barrier for holding media entities liable for the violent acts of consumers, limiting such liability to cases of direct incitement to imminent lawless action, as established in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio. By refusing to create a new, vague duty of care based on content, the court affirmed strong First Amendment protections for broadcasters and prevented the establishment of a precedent that could lead to widespread self-censorship of any content depicting violence, from classic literature to news reports.
