Pamela J. Howell v New York Post
From Personality Rights Database
|
| United States |
Contents |
[edit] 1 Pamela J. Howell et al. / New York Post
Case Name: Pamela J. Howell et al. / New York Post
Key Words: Press use of photographs of people accompanying persons of public interest
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Country: USA
Citation: 81 NY2d 115, 612 NE 2d 699, 596 NYS2d 350 (1993)
Date: 5. April 1993
Case No.: 1 No. 68 [1993 NY Int. 71]
Importance: Trespassing on private grounds by a photographer does not lead to an injunction against the publication; persons who have private contact with figures of public interest have to tolerate press coverage under §§ 50, 51 New York civil law
Facts: Claimant Howell was hospitalised in a private psychiatric institution called “Four Winds”. Her stay there had to remain secret to all except her closest family in order not to endanger the success of the treatment.
Hedda Nussbaum was at the same time a patient in the psychiatric institution. She was the adoptive mother of a six year old child who had died from child abuse under odd circumstances. Nussbaum’s role in the death was subject to public discussion. She may also have been a victim.
A photographer for the defendant newspaper, the New York Post, trespassed onto Four Winds’ secluded grounds and using a telephoto lens took pictures of Nussbaum and the claimant. The photograph appeared in the New York Post as a follow-up story to the child’s death. The article showed sympathy for Nussbaum and claimed the treatment had been successful to an extent.
The claimant used §§ 50, 51 civil law; trespass; harassment; emotional distress and prima facie tort as legal bases of the claim.
[edit] 2 Decision and Reasoning
[edit] 2.1 Infliction of emotional distress
The court pointed out that emotional distress had traditionally not been recognised as proper damage. However, in the 1930s and heavily influenced by the work of Dean Prosser, a new tort had developed which recognised this category. The 1948 version of the Restatement of Torts put it in such a way that “one who, without a privilege to do so, intentionally causes severe emotional distress is liable..:” Prosser considered this language to be too broad. The Second Restatement of Torts stated that “one who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another” is liable.
The tort is broad in scope but narrowed by a strict construction of the element of outrageous behaviour.
In the instant case the Court of Appeals found that the defendant’s publication enjoyed the privilege of press reporting. The publication as such was justified.
Courts have recognised that news-gathering methods can reach the outrageous standard. (Galella / Onassis, 487 F2d 986, 995 [2nd Circuit]). The trespass in the instant case did not, however, justify such a conclusion.
[edit] 2.2 An freestanding privacy tort
New York law does not acknowledge a common law of privacy. §§ 50, 51 New York Civil Law is the only instrument a claimant can rely upon.
[edit] 2.3 §§50, 51 New York Civil Law
As with *Messenger / Gruner and * Finger / Omni, the claimant failed under these sections of the New York Civil Law because her picture was illustrative of an article depicting the life of Hedda Nussbaum.
It would appear that, as a general rule the “companion” of a public figure must has no redress when their image is included in a picture illustrating an article.
This finding under §§ 50-51 New York civil law also influenced the tort of emotional distress, as discussed above. The court found that where a privacy action fails, that finding cannot then be circumvented by the tort of emotional distress.
| List of States |
|---|
|
Argentina · Australia · Canada · France · Germany · Mexico · South Africa · Spain · United Kingdom · United States |
| United States | ||
|---|---|---|
| Federal | US Federal law | |
| States | Alabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maine | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota | Mississippi | Missouri | Montana | Nebraska | Nevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New Mexico | New York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming | |
