Green v. Chicago Tribune Co.
Decision Date | 30 December 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 1-94-3130,1-94-3130 |
Citation | 286 Ill.App.3d 1,675 N.E.2d 249 |
Parties | , 221 Ill.Dec. 342 Laura GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHICAGO TRIBUNE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Lawrence W. Leck & Assoc., Ltd., Chicago, for Appellant.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, James A. Klenk, Gregory R. Naron, of counsel, Chicago Tribune Company, Chicago, for Appellee; Dale M. Cohen, Paulette Dodson, of counsel.
Plaintiff, Laura Green, filed an amended complaint against defendant, the Chicago Tribune Company (hereinafter Tribune), alleging invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and battery. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint against the Tribune pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 1992). Plaintiff appeals.
First, we address whether the trial court properly granted the Tribune's section 2-615 motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for invasion of privacy. In the invasion of privacy count, plaintiff pleaded the following allegations which must be assumed true for purposes of the motion: Tribune staffers photographed her son, Calvin Green, on December 30, 1992, while he was undergoing emergency treatment at Cook County Hospital for a bullet wound. The Tribune never asked plaintiff's permission to photograph Calvin. After attempts to resuscitate Calvin failed, medical personnel moved him to a private hospital room to await the coroner. The coroner pronounced Calvin dead at 12:10 a.m. on December 31, 1992. Around that time, a reporter for the Tribune asked plaintiff for a statement regarding her son's death. She refused to make a statement. Meanwhile, Tribune staffers entered the private hospital room and took further unauthorized photographs of Calvin. While photographing Calvin, they prevented plaintiff from entering the room. When plaintiff did enter the room, the Tribune staffers listened to her statements to Calvin.
On January 1, 1993, the Tribune published a front-page article, about Chicago's record homicide rate. The article included the following quotes from plaintiff's statements to Calvin on December 31: The Tribune also published one of the unauthorized photographs taken of Calvin after he died. In a January 3, 1993, article 1, the Tribune published one of the unauthorized photographs taken of Calvin while undergoing medical treatment.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges the Tribune publicly disclosed private facts and thus invaded her privacy when it (a) "trespassed" into Calvin's room; (b) photographed Calvin without plaintiff's consent; (c) prevented plaintiff from entering Calvin's room while the Tribune took photographs of him; (d) "eavesdropped" on plaintiff's statements to Calvin; (e) published on January 1 the front-page article containing quotes from plaintiff's statements to Calvin and the photograph of Calvin lying dead; and (f) published on January 3 the photograph of Calvin undergoing medical treatment. The trial court dismissed plaintiff's action pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 1992).
When ruling on a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, the trial court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Palmer v. Chicago Park District, 277 Ill.App.3d 282, 284, 213 Ill.Dec. 889, 660 N.E.2d 146 (1995). The trial court should not dismiss a complaint under section 2-615 unless it clearly appears no set of facts could be proved under the pleadings entitling plaintiff to relief. Palmer, 277 Ill.App.3d at 284, 213 Ill.Dec. 889, 660 N.E.2d 146. In making such a determination, the trial court must interpret the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Palmer, 277 Ill.App.3d at 284, 213 Ill.Dec. 889, 660 N.E.2d 146. Accordingly, we also analyze plaintiff's complaint, although only allegations, in the light most favorable to plaintiff.
The public disclosure of private facts is one branch of the tort of invasion of privacy. Roehrborn v. Lambert, 277 Ill.App.3d 181, 184, 213 Ill.Dec. 923, 660 N.E.2d 180 (1995); Beverly v. Reinert, 239 Ill.App.3d 91, 97, 179 Ill.Dec. 789, 606 N.E.2d 621 (1992). To state a cause of action for the public disclosure of private facts, plaintiff must plead (1) the Tribune gave publicity; (2) to her private, not public, life; (3) the matter publicized was highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (4) the matter publicized was not of legitimate public concern. See Miller v. Motorola, Inc., 202 Ill.App.3d 976, 978, 148 Ill.Dec. 303, 560 N.E.2d 900 (1990), which adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts' definition of the public disclosure of private acts.
First, we address whether plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient to assert the first prong of the tort: the publicity element. The comments to the Restatement (Second) of Torts state that publicity means Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 652D, comment a, at 384-85 (1977).
Plaintiff satisfied the publicity element of the tort by pleading a cause of action premised on the Tribune's publishing her statements and the photographs of her son in the January 1 and January 3 editions of the Chicago Tribune.
Next, we address whether plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient to assert the second prong of the tort: the facts disclosed in the Chicago Tribune were private. The circuit court found plaintiff failed to plead that the matter published was private, not public. The court stated
We disagree with the trial court's finding as a matter of law that Calvin's hospital room was a "public place" and thus plaintiff's statements in that room could not be private. Plaintiff's complaint clearly pleads that Calvin was in a private room, and, as the court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true, the trial court's failure to accept that fact as true contributed to the error in its analysis. Further, Black's Law Dictionary defines "public place" as:
Black's Law Dictionary 1107 (5th ed. 1979).
The general public surely had no right to resort in Calvin's private hospital room, nor did the public have an interest in that room that affected their safety, health, morals, or welfare. Thus, Calvin's hospital room was not a "public place."
We also disagree with the trial court's finding as a matter of law that plaintiff's statements were not private because she made them in front of Tribune personnel. In support, we cite two cases from other jurisdictions that faced a similar issue, Virgil v. Time, Inc., 527 F.2d 1122 (9th Cir.1975) and Y.G. and L.G. v. Jewish Hospital of St. Louis, 795 S.W.2d 488 (Mo.App.1990). The plaintiff in Virgil willingly gave an interview to Sports Illustrated. Virgil, 527 F.2d at 1124. Before Sports Illustrated published the article, plaintiff indicated his desire to "stop the story." Virgil, 527 F.2d at 1124. Nevertheless, Sports Illustrated published the article, and plaintiff brought a public disclosure of private facts action against defendant. The trial court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, and defendant brought an interlocutory appeal. Virgil, 527 F.2d at 1123.
On appeal, defendant argued that by voluntarily talking to Sports Illustrated, plaintiff had rendered public the facts disclosed. Virgil, 527 F.2d at 1126. The Ninth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals disagreed:
"Talking freely to someone is not in itself * * * making public the substance of the talk. There is an obvious and substantial difference between the disclosure of private facts to an individual--a disclosure that is selective and based on a judgment as to whether knowledge by that person would be felt to be objectionable--and the disclosure of the same facts to the public at large. * * *
Talking freely to a member of the press, knowing the listener to be a member of the press, is not then in itself making public. Such communication can be said to anticipate that what is said will be made public since making public is the function of the press, and accordingly such communication can be construed as a consent to publicize. Thus if publicity results it can be said to have been consented to. However, if consent is withdrawn prior to the act of publicizing, the consequent publicity is without consent." Virgil, 527 F.2d at 1127.
In Y.G. and L.G., plaintiffs participated in Jewish Hospital's in vitro fertilization program. Y.G., 795 S.W.2d at 492. Plaintiffs brought a public disclosure of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jane Doe 20 v. Bd. Of Educ. Of The Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 5
... ... v. Park Forest-Chicago ... Heights, 315 F.3d 817, 824 (7th Cir.2003), ... quoting Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of ... They ... cite Green v. Chicago Tribune Co., 286 ... Ill.App.3d 1, 221 Ill.Dec. 342, 675 N.E.2d ... 249 (1st ... ...
-
Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc.
...despite undisputed legitimate public interest in the subjects of gang violence and murder. (Green v. Chicago Tribune Co. (1996) 286 Ill.App.3d 1, 221 Ill.Dec. 342, 675 N.E.2d 249, 255-256.) [955 P.2d 484] virtue of its attractiveness, of legitimate public interest. Second, the evaluation of......
-
Mitchell v. Baltimore Sun Co.
...imply the grant of an open invitation for other members of the community to enter at their will. See Green v. Chicago Tribune Co., 286 Ill.App.3d 1, 221 Ill.Dec. 342, 675 N.E.2d 249 (1996) (holding, among other things, that statements made by a mother to her deceased son in a private hospit......
-
Kapotas v. Better Gov't Ass'n
...¶ 83 “The public disclosure of private facts is one branch of the tort of invasion of privacy.” Green v. Chicago Tribune Co., 286 Ill.App.3d 1, 5, 221 Ill.Dec. 342, 675 N.E.2d 249 (1996). “To state a cause of action for the public disclosure of private facts, plaintiff must plead (1) the [d......
-
Keep Out! the Efficacy of Trespass, Nuisance and Privacy Torts as Applied to Drones
...300, 319-22 (N.J. 2010).346. Id. at 320-21.347. Id. at 304.348. Id. at 305-06.349. Id. at 304, 321. 350. Green v. Chicago Tribune, Co., 675 N.E.2d 249, 254 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996).351. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 625D cmt. c (Am. Law. Inst. 1979).352. Green, 675 N.E.2d at 254.353. Id. at 2......
-
Protecting the press from privacy.
...her election to the student-body presidency at a local junior college was not newsworthy as a matter of law); Green v. Chicago Tribune, 675 N.E.2d 249, 255-56 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (holding that a jury could find that the words of a grieving mother, spoken over the body of her slain son at h......
-
Free Speech and the Right to Offend: Old Wars, New Battles, Different Media
...permitted to publicize [private] facts about an individual's private life when those facts are newsworthy." Green v. Chi. Trib. Co., 675 N.E.2d 249, 261 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). [204]. See supra Part II.B.1 (discussing the political value of Horowitz's advertisement in that it triggered discus......