Green v. Chicago Tribune Co., 675 N.E.2d 249

Illinois Court of Appeals

1996

Chapter

18

Title

Privacy

Page

773

Topic

The Privacy Torts

Quick Notes

Reporters took unauthorized photos of a dying son and further unauthorized photos after death.

Book Name

Torts Cases, Problems, And Exercises.  Weaver, Third Edition.  ISBN:  978-1-4224-7220-0.

Issue

o         Whether the trial court properly granted the Tribunes motion to dismiss the Pl - claim for invasion of privacy?  No and Yes.

Procedure

Trial

o         Dismissed plaintiff's action pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Appellant

o         Affirmed in part (does not state a cause of action for the January 3, 1993, publication) and Reversed in part (does states a cause of action for public disclosure of private facts with respect to the January 1, 1993)

Facts

Reasoning

Rules

Pl Green

Df Chicago Tribune

What happened?

o         Green is the dead boys mother.

o         Tribune staffers photographed her son, Calvin Green, while he was undergoing emergency treatment at Cook County Hospital for a bullet wound.

Never Asked Permission

o         The Tribune never asked plaintiff's permission to photograph Calvin.

Refused Statement

o         After he son died the reporter asked the mother for a statement and she refused.

Further authorized Photos

o         Meanwhile, Tribune staffers entered the private hospital room and took further unauthorized  photographs of Calvin.

Prevented Mother From Entering

o         While photographing Calvin, they prevented plaintiff from entering the room.

Personal statements to dead son

o         When plaintiff did enter the room, the Tribune staffers listened to her statements to Calvin.

All Allegations

o         (a) "trespassed" into Calvin's room;

o         (b) photographed Calvin without plaintiff's consent;

o         (c) prevented plaintiff from entering Calvin's room while the Tribune took photographs of him;

o         (d) "eavesdropped" on plaintiff's statements to Calvin;

o         (e) Published on January 1 the front-page article containing quotes from plaintiff's statements to Calvin and the photograph of Calvin lying dead; and

o         (f) Published a photograph on January 3 of Calvin undergoing medical treatment.

Trial Court

o         Dismissed plaintiff's action pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Public Disclosure of Private Facts Element

The public disclosure of private facts is one branch of the tort of invasion of privacy. To state a cause of action for the public disclosure of private facts, plaintiff must plead

(1) the defendant gave publicity;  (Tribune gave publicity)

(2) to her private, not public, life;

(3) the matter publicized was highly offensive to a reasonable person; and

(4) the matter publicized was not of legitimate public concern.

Appellant Court (Publicity Analysis)

o         Pl - satisfied the publicity element

Appellant Court (Private, Not Public Life Analysis)

o         Trial said the statement was made aloud in a public place.

o         We disagree.  The Pl clearly pleads that Calvin was in a private room.

o         The general public had not right to resort in Calvins hospital room nor had an interest

Public Place (def) a place to which the general public has the right to resort.

Appellant Court (Spoke In Front Of Her Son Analysis)

o         She told reporters she did not wish to make a statement regarding sons death.

o         We think a jury could find that the Pl put the Df on notice not to disclose statements made to son in the hospital room.

Tribune Damages Arg

o         The Pl - seeks to recover damages for the invasion of privacy of her son, and not herself.

Appellant Court (Jan 3 Medical Treatment Photograph)

o         The publication never mentions the PL and thus does not invade her privacy.

o         Jan 3 invasion of privacy must be dismissed.

Highly Offensive Conduct Elements

1.         Degree of intrusion,

2.         Context, conduct and circumstances surrounding the intrusion

3.         Intruder's motives and objectives,

4.         Setting into which he intrudes

5.         Expectations of those whose privacy is invaded.

Appellant Court (Highly Offensive Analysis)

o         January 1 will only be examined, because January 3 was dismissed.

Reasonable People Could Differ and Find That:

o         Tribune's publication was not about an ordinary daily activity or incident in plaintiff's life.

o         The publication concerned an extraordinarily painful incident in plaintiff's life.

o         That the Tribune's publication was not a minor or moderate annoyance,

o         Tribune staffers prevented plaintiff from seeing Calvin while taking photographs and

o         Taking unauthorized statements of the plaintiff's grief-stricken last words to

o         A jury could find these facts to be publication highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Appellant Court (matter publicized was highly offensive to a reasonable person)

o         Court says the question is whether photographs of her son and her statements are of legitimate public concern.

o         Tribune says the article was about death tools from guns and gangs and it was of public concern.  The statement gives an identity and a voice to the victims of violence.

o         Court says the article did not need to report on attempts to revive, opening his chest, Pl - statements to son, or his photograph to convey suffering from gang violence.

Appellant Court ( Matter of public concern)

o         One must take into account customs and conventions of the community.

o         Line to be draw between what the public is entitled to and morbid prying that a reasonable and descent member of the public would say he had no concern.

o         A jury could find that a reasonable member of the public has no concern with the statements a grieving mother makes to her dead son, or with what he looked like lying dead in the hospital, even though he died as the result of a gang shooting.

Holding

o         Affirmed in part (does not state a cause of action for the January 3, 1993, publication) and Reversed in part (does states a cause of action for public disclosure of private facts with respect to the January 1, 1993)

DISSENT (This shows us the other argument for tests purposes!!!)

o         Affirms the trial court, but disagrees with the reasoning of the Appellate Court.

o         The first four allegations have nothing to do with the tort of public disclosure of private facts.

o         He thinks it has to with unreasonable seclusion of another.

o         The restatement adopted Dean Prossers writing that treats the publication of private facts and seclusion as separate torts.  Almost all state and federal courts follow the restatement.

If Photograph was taking on the street and his mothers words were recorded

o         It would be a public concern

Tragic Public Involuntary Figures

o         Calvin and his mother were tragic involuntary public figures in a story of grim but legitimate public interest is self-evident. The alleged intrusion cannot change their status or diminish the newsworthiness of the story.

Giving publicity to the private life

o         The jury is not called upon to decide what is "highly offensive" until a court has determined that the matter is first, private, and second, offensive.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

o         The right of privacy must give way when balanced against the publication of matters of public interest to insure the "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" discussion of legitimate public issues.

Class Notes

Public Disclosure of Private Facts Element

The public disclosure of private facts is one branch of the tort of invasion of privacy. To state a cause of action for the public disclosure of private facts, plaintiff must plead

(1) the defendant gave publicity;

(2) to her private, not public, life;

(3) the matter publicized was highly offensive to a reasonable person; and

(4) the matter publicized was not of legitimate public concern.

Highly Offensive Conduct Elements

1.   Degree of intrusion,

2.   Context, conduct and circumstances surrounding the intrusion

3.   Intruder's motives and objectives,

4.   Setting into which he intrudes

5.   Expectations of those whose privacy is invaded.