Hill v. Hayes

Citation240 N.Y.S.2d 286,18 A.D.2d 485
PartiesJames J. HILL and Elizabeth Selfridge Hill, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Joseph HAYES, Howard Erskine, The Desperate Hours Company, Defendants, and Time, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date14 May 1963
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Harold R. Medina, Jr., New York City, of counsel (Oliver C. Biddle and Alan J. Hruska, New York City, with him on the brief; Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, attys.), for defendant-appellant.

Leonard Garment, New York City, of counsel (Donald J. Zoeller, New York City, with him on the brief; Mudge, Stern, Baldwin & Todd, New York City, attys.), for plaintiffs-respondents.

Before BOTEIN, P. J., and RABIN, VALENTE, McNALLY and STEVENS, JJ.

STEVENS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered after a jury trial which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs. The action is one for damages based on a violation of plaintiffs' right of privacy under Section 51 of the Civil Rights Law. This section, in pertinent part, provides:

'Any person whose name, portrait or picture is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained as above provided may maintain an equitable action * * * to prevent and restrain the use thereof * * * and may also sue and recover damages for any injuries sustained * * *.'

On September 11, 1952, the plaintiffs and their children were held captive in their own home in Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, for 19 hours by three escaped convicts. Sometime in the early morning of September 12, 1952, the convicts departed, leaving plaintiffs and their family unharmed. The incident received wide publicity at the time and was given extensive press coverage. Plaintiff James J. Hill, in a statement given to the press almost immediately after the occurrence, stated the family had not been molested or harmed and, save for the restraint, had been treated courteously.

Plaintiffs sought to forget their ordeal, and a few months later plaintiffs and their family moved to Greenwich, Connecticut. The move, a result of job promotion, was accelerated because of the September 1952 incident. Opportunities to capitalize on the occurrence were rejected. The record reveals plaintiffs' refusals in an attempt to avoid further publicity for the sake of their children.

In the spring of 1953, a book, 'The Desperate Hours', was written by Joseph Hayes, which was later made into a play and also a picture bearing the same title. The story dealt with three escaped convicts holding a family as hostages in their suburban home. Some of the members of the family were assaulted, profanity was used and in other ways the story differed from the account given by Hill of what had occurred in their home.

In 1954, the play opened for a tryout in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Following conferences with the producer, Life Magazine decided to do an article on the play. Thereafter Life arranged to have the Whitemarsh home made available for photo-coverage, and chiefly at its own expense transported members of the cast to the house where it shot actual scenes from the play. It must be remembered this was the house where the real Hill incident occurred. In connection with and accompanying the article Life featured these scenes. The article, which appeared in Life's February 28, 1955, issue under a heading 'True Crime Inspires Tense Play', read, in part, as follows:

'Three years ago Americans all over the country read about the desperate ordeal of the James Hill family, who were held prisoners in their home outside Philadelphia by three escaped convicts. Later they read about it in Joseph Hayes's novel, The Desperate Hours, inspired by the family's experience. Now they can see the story re-enacted in Hayes's Broadway play based on the book, and next year will see it in his movie, which has been filmed but is being held up until the play has a chance to pay off.'

Thereafter plaintiffs instituted suit. It is from a judgment in their favor that this appeal is taken.

The right of privacy is purely statutory (Gautier v. Pro-Football, Inc., 304 N.Y. 354, 358, 107 N.E.2d 485, 489). The section is designed 'to prevent the use of an individual's name for commercial purposes without his consent' (Orsini v. Eastern Wine Corporation, 190 Misc. 235, 236, 73 N.Y.S.2d 426, 427). It is immaterial whether the use by defendants of the name holds the party up to ridicule or contempt since the action is not one for libel (Binns v. Vitagraph Company of America, 210 N.Y. 51, 54, 103 N.E. 1108, 1111; Callas v. Whisper, Inc., 198 Misc. 829, 831, 101 N.Y.S.2d 532, 533).

'The test for legally protected privacy may involve either the decency of the public interest in the events involved or the fame or notoriety of the person asserting his privacy interest or both' (1 Harper & James, Torts, § 9.7, p. 687). So too 'either or both of two factors may be involved in justifying a breach of the seal of privacy; the propriety of public information as newsworthy, in the light of the habits, customs and values of our society and the extent to which the plaintiff, either by his voluntary conduct or because it was thrust upon him, has achieved the position of a 'public figure', and thus become newsworthy' (ibid. pp. 686-687). New York also requires that the use of the name, etc., be for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade. For the right protected is the right to be protected against the commercial exploitation of one's personality without his written consent (Civil Rights Law, § 51).

In September 1952, when the incident occurred, plaintiffs were projected unwillingly into the limelight and, under the test enunciated, had no legally protected privacy so far as legitimate, accurate reporting and fair comment were concerned. They were newsworthy. The passage of time tended to dim the public interest both because of other events, actually or apparently of greater public interest or significance, and because plaintiffs themselves avoided capitalizing on the occurrence. In other words, the occurrence had been relegated to the outer fringe of the public consciousness.

When the defendant, in its article of February 28, 1955, revived or intensified interest in the ordeal which plaintiffs had experienced, the use of plaintiffs' name was primary and not merely incidental to the article (cf. Wallach v. Bacharach, 192 Misc. 979, 80 N.Y.S.2d 37, aff'd 274 App.Div. 919, 84 N.Y.S.2d 894). Although the play was fictionalized, Life's article portrayed it as a reenactment of the Hills' experience. It is an inescapable conclusion that this was done to advertise and attract further attention to the play, and to increase present and future magazine circulation as well. It is evident that the article cannot be characterized as a mere dissemination of news, nor even an effort to supply legitimate newsworthy information in which the public had, or might have a proper interest.

Hayes, the author of the play 'The Desperate Hours', in an article which appeared January 30, 1955, in The New York Times, had stated the play was fictionalized. This article was available to, and, in fact apparently in the possession of the defendant when its publication of February 28, 1955, appeared. Defendant did not seek to ascertain from Hayes if his play was an account of what happened to the Hills. Defendant merely concluded that basically the play was a reenactment and so stated. The contention of defendant that it found points of similarity in the book and the occurrence of September 11, 1952, justified neither the identification nor the commercial exploitation of plaintiffs' name and family with the play.

While there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict on the question of liability, prejudicial error was committed which undoubtedly influenced, improperly, the jury's determination as to the quantum of damages. Accordingly, a retrial is directed, limited solely to that question.

Since a re-trial is being directed on the sole issue of damages, certain matters may be adverted to for the guidance of the parties. The admission into evidence and viewing of the film by the jury constituted substantial prejudicial error. The film was released almost one year after the article appeared, and subsequent to the institution of the suit. The emotional impact of viewing a highly charged, tense, dramatic film portrayal of incidents of the nature here involved, with accompanying sound effects, was inflammatory and undoubtedly served to influence the jury improperly. Because of the remoteness in time it is doubtful that much, if any, of the public recalled the article or were significantly influenced by it. Elements and factors were introduced by the showing of the film for which defendant should not fairly be held responsible.

The plaintiff James J. Hill was permitted to testify in broad general terms about comments and questions directed to him by various persons, not otherwise identified, concerning his connection with or relation to the characters portrayed in 'The Desperate Hours', and their reaction to his responses. The incidents were not specifically related or, as pointed out, the persons identified. This was error. Defendant could neither disprove the assertions by calling such persons nor could it cross-examine the alleged speakers. 'The better practice would be to call as witnesses for plaintiff, subject to cross-examination, the persons who were supposed to have spoken or acted adversely to plaintiff and to demonstrate, if such demonstration be possible, a connection to the libel' (Macy v. New York World Telegram Corporation, 2 N.Y.2d 416, 422, 161 N.Y.S.2d 55, 60, 141 N.E.2d 566, 570). It is true the observation quoted was made in a libel case. However, it is equally applicable in a case of this nature because of the evil it is designed to prevent. It is the fact of wrongful intrusion on privacy and the state of mind and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Weeren v. Evening News Ass'n
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • October 2, 1967
    ...p. 485).8 Mr. Silver's references at the time (May 1966) were to the Sullivan Case, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710 and to Hill v. Hayes, 18 A.D.2d 485, 240 N.Y.S.2d 286, aff'd. mem., 15 N.Y.2d 986, 260 N.Y.S.2d 7, 207 N.E.2d 604.9 This happened again the Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, supra. See the......
  • Time, Inc v. Hill, 22
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1967
    ...nor even an effort to supply legitimate newsworthy information in which the public had, or might have a proper interest.' 18 A.D.2d 485, 489, 240 N.Y.S.2d 286, 290. At the new trial on damages, a jury was waived and the court awarded $30,000 compensatory damages without punitive The New Yor......
  • Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 22, 1966
    ...221 N.E.2d 543 (1966), construing § 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law, McKinney's Consol. Laws, c. 6. See also Hill v. Hays, 18 A.D.2d 485, 240 N.Y.S.2d 286 (1st Dep't 1963), aff'd, 15 N.Y.2d 986, 260 N.Y.S. 2d 7, 207 N.E.2d 604 (1965); possible jurisdiction noted sub nom. Time, Inc. v. H......
  • Meeropol v. Nizer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 31, 1974
    ...of privacy is exclusively statutory. Roberson v. Rochester Folding Box Co., 171 N.Y. 538, 64 N.E. 442 (1902); Hill v. Hayes, 18 A.D.2d 485, 240 N.Y.S.2d 286 (1st Dept. 1963). Assuming the Gallela case recognized a right of privacy beyond the statutory grant, the court limited its decision t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT