HOOD V. NAETER BROTHERS PUBLISHING CO.
562 S.W.2d 770 (1978)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Hood (P) brought an action for damages for allegedly outrageous
conduct by Naeter (D), a newspaper and its reporter (the newspaper), in publishing P's name
as witness to a murder. The court gave D a summary judgment and P appealed.
FACTS: P was an employee of a liquor store that was robbed by two masked black men. P
witnessed the fatal shooting of a fellow employee. The police department released its report
to the press, giving details of the robbery, including P's name and address. D published a
front-page article and identified P as a witness and printed his address. The two suspects
were still at large. P sued under intentional infliction of emotional distress. P claimed he
has been in constant fear, has been forced to change his residence repeatedly, has become
suspicious of all black persons and has been under the care of a psychiatrist. P contends
D's publication of his name and address constituted outrageous conduct because Ds knew or
should have known the killers were still at large. The judge gave D summary judgment.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment