Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc.

Supreme Court of California · 1998 · Torts

TortsInvasion of PrivacyPublication of Private FactsIntrusionNewsworthinessFirst Amendmentprivacy tortspublic disclosure of private facts

Facts

Ruth and Wayne Shulman were injured in a car accident on Interstate 10, and Ruth was trapped under the overturned vehicle. A rescue helicopter crew treated and transported them while a cameraman employed by television producers filmed the rescue and recorded audio through a microphone worn by the flight nurse. Months later, defendants broadcast a documentary segment showing parts of Ruth's rescue, transport, and statements, without plaintiffs' consent. Plaintiffs sued for invasion of privacy based on both the recording itself and the later broadcast.

Issue

Whether defendants could be liable for publication of private facts by broadcasting footage and audio of plaintiffs' rescue, and whether defendants could be liable for intrusion by filming inside the rescue helicopter and recording Ruth's conversations with medical personnel. The court also had to decide whether the First Amendment barred either claim.

Rule

For publication of private facts, the plaintiff must show public disclosure of a private fact that would be offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate public concern; newsworthiness is both an element and a complete bar to liability. For intrusion, the plaintiff must show an intentional intrusion into a private place, conversation, or matter in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person; offensiveness depends on all the circumstances, including the degree, setting, and motives of the intrusion. The press has no general constitutional privilege to intrude into private places or confidential communications in gathering news, even when the subject matter is newsworthy.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, a local television station airs a documentary about urban search-and-rescue teams responding to apartment fires. The segment shows Dana Morales being carried down a ladder after smoke inhalation and includes her frightened statements to rescuers about not being able to breathe, but it does not give her full name.

Dana sues for publication of private facts based on the broadcast. Which is the strongest argument for the station?

Explanation. For publication of private facts, lack of newsworthiness is part of the plaintiff’s case, and newsworthiness is a complete bar. The majority held that truthful material about an emergency rescue is protected when it bears a logical nexus or substantial relevance to a matter of legitimate public concern and is not excessively intrusive relative to that relevance. Consent is not required for the bar, public visibility alone is not the whole test, and courts do not act as super-editors deciding what details were strictly necessary.