You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Miller v. National Broadcasting Co.

Citations: 187 Cal. App. 3d 1463; 232 Cal. Rptr. 668; 69 A.L.R. 4th 1027; 1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 2355Docket: B015241

Court: California Court of Appeal; December 18, 1986; California; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, a camera crew from NBC, without consent, entered a private home during an emergency response to film a paramedical intervention, subsequently airing the footage on television. The plaintiffs, the wife and daughter of the deceased subject, filed a lawsuit alleging trespass, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against NBC, the producer, and the City of Los Angeles. The case revolved around the legal principles of privacy rights, trespass, and the limitations imposed by the First Amendment on newsgathering activities. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that there was no actionable claim of trespass or invasion of privacy, emphasizing the absence of malicious intent and actual damages. However, the appellate court found that the unauthorized entry into the home constituted trespass and that the intrusion was sufficiently offensive to support a privacy claim. The court determined that the First Amendment did not shield the defendants from liability for trespass and privacy invasion. The summary judgment was reversed for the plaintiff wife but affirmed for the plaintiff daughter, highlighting the balance between media rights and individual privacy. The outcome favors the plaintiff wife with recoverable costs, acknowledging the emotional distress caused by the broadcast of her husband's final moments.

Legal Issues Addressed

First Amendment and Newsgathering

Application: The First Amendment does not protect newsgathering activities that involve trespass or invasions of privacy, as the obligation to avoid unlawful entry does not infringe on press rights.

Reasoning: The court concludes that the obligation to avoid unauthorized entry into private property does not unduly burden newsgatherers or infringe on First Amendment rights, emphasizing the importance of privacy.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Application: Plaintiff wife had a viable cause of action for emotional distress due to the unauthorized filming and broadcasting of her husband's final moments, which was deemed extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendants.

Reasoning: The plaintiff wife has a viable cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to the unauthorized filming and broadcasting of her husband's final moments, which took place in her home without consent.

Invasion of Privacy through Intrusion

Application: The court recognized a cause of action for invasion of privacy due to the defendants' unauthorized filming of the plaintiff's husband during a private and vulnerable moment.

Reasoning: The NBC camera crew's intrusion into Dave Miller's bedroom during a vulnerable moment due to his seizure may be considered 'highly offensive,' thereby supporting a privacy breach claim under Restatement of Torts, section 652B.

Summary Judgment Criteria

Application: Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no triable issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, particularly emphasized in cases involving First Amendment rights.

Reasoning: The court is confined to the facts presented in affidavits and uncontested pleadings when considering motions for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment must be granted if the submitted materials demonstrate that there is no triable issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Trespass as an Intentional Tort

Application: Defendants' entry into the plaintiffs' property without permission constitutes a trespass, even without malicious intent, as intent is established by the unauthorized entry itself.

Reasoning: In the case of the plaintiff wife’s first cause of action for trespass, it is acknowledged that the defendants entered her apartment without authorization, constituting a trespass defined by common law as an unauthorized entry onto another's property.