SANDERS V. AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC., ET AL
20 Cal.4th 907 (1999)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Sanders (P), a 'telepsychic', appealed a judgment of the Court of
Appeals which reversed the judgment in his favor on the tort of invasion of privacy by
intrusion against Kersis (D1), an undercover television reporter employed by American (D).
FACTS: P was working as a telepsychic giving 'readings' to customers who telephoned a 900
number. P's work area consisted of a large room with rows of cubicles, about 100 total, in
which the psychics took their calls. Each cubicle was enclosed on three sides by
five-foot-high partitions. The door to the facility was unlocked during business hours, but
the company P worked for prohibited access to the office by nonemployees without specific
permission. D, employed by D1 was investigating the telepsychic industry and was hired by
the PMG, the same company P worked for. D was hired and while sitting at her desk she could
easily overhear conversations conducted in surrounding cubicles or in the aisles near her
cubicle. She talked with some of the other psychics in the phone room and secretly
videotaped these conversations with a 'hat cam,' i.e., a small camera hidden in her hat; a
microphone attached to her brassiere captured sound as well. D videotaped two conversations
with P. D1's PrimeTime Live broadcast about the telepsychic industry included a short
excerpt from the second conversation. P sued Ds based on the videotaping itself: violation
of Penal Code section 632 and the common law tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion. The
court ordered trial on these counts bifurcated, with the section 632 count tried first. In a
special verdict form, the jury was asked whether the conversation upon which defendants
allegedly intruded was conducted 'in circumstances in which the parties to the communication
may reasonably have expected that the communications may have been overheard.' Based on the
jury's affirmative answer to this question, the trial court ordered judgment entered for
defendants on the section 632 cause of action. Ds then moved to dismiss the remaining cause
of action for intrusion, for an order of nonsuit, and to reopen their earlier motion for
summary judgment on this cause of action. The court denied these motions, allowing trial to
go forward on the issue of liability for photographic intrusion. The trial court ruled P
could proceed on the theory he had a limited right of privacy against being covertly
videotaped by a journalist in his workplace, even though his interaction with that
journalist may have been witnessed, and his conversations overheard, by coworkers. The jury
fixed compensatory damages at $335,000; found Ds had acted with malice, fraud or oppression;
and awarded exemplary damages of about $300,000. The Court of Appeal reversed. The majority
reasoned that 'the invasion of privacy tort requires an invasion into a secluded area where
one has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, that is, an objectively reasonable
expectation of confidentiality.' P appealed.
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