Miller v. National Broadcasting Co.: Difference between revisions
Oddharmonic (talk | contribs) Added categories. |
CactusWriter (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{expert|date=November 2008}} |
|||
{{unreferenced|date=October 2008}} |
{{unreferenced|date=October 2008}} |
||
'''Miller v. National Broadcasting Co.''' 232 Cal. Rptr 688 (1986) |
'''Miller v. National Broadcasting Co.''' 232 Cal. Rptr 688 (1986) |
Revision as of 21:01, 17 November 2008
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.(November 2008) |
Miller v. National Broadcasting Co. 232 Cal. Rptr 688 (1986)
Background
On October 30th, 1979 an NBC camera crew was following a group of Los Angeles Fire Department firefighters and paramedics. A call came in about a man having a heart attack. The camera crew and the paramedics rushed to the home of Brownie and Dave Miller. The camera crew, without consent from anyone, rushed into the house with the paramedics and taped footage of Mr. Dave Miller having what would be a fatal heart attack. The crew later that night would put the footage on the air, also without consent. Brownie Miller filed suit against NBC, Ruben Norte (a producer for NBC) and the city of Los Angeles for trespass, invasion of privacy infliction of emotional distress.
Legal Issue
Does the media, even though they obtain consent from the group they are following (Police, firefighters, paramedics, etc.) have the same access privileges as the police of paramedics do if they are following them on scene?
Decision
The Court ruled, ultimately, in favor of the plaintiff on the charges of Invasion of Privacy and infliction of Emotional Distress.
Reasoning
“One seeking emergency medical attention does not thereby “open the door” for persons without any clearly identifiable and justifiable official reason who may wish to enter the premises where the medical aid is being administered…the clear line of demarcation between the public interest served by public officials and that served by private business must not be obscured.”
Disposition
Reversed- The California Courts of Appeal reversed the summary judgment of the District Court in favor of the defendants and ruled in favor of Brownie Miller.