Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co.
Citation | 126 Cal.App.3d 488,178 Cal.Rptr. 888 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Decision Date | 07 December 1981 |
Parties | , 7 Media L. Rep. 2359 OLIVIA N., a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NATIONAL BROADCASTING CO., INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 46981. |
Lewis, Rouda & Lewis, Marvin E. Lewis, San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant; Victoria J. De Goff, Berkeley, of counsel.
James J. Brosnahan, Linda E. Shostak, Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, Floyd Abrams, Dean Ringel, Patricia A. McGovern, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, New York City, for defendants and respondents.
Hassard, Bonnington, Rogers and Huber, Howard Hassard, David E. Willett, Nancy E. Hudgins, San Francisco, for amicus curiae California Medical Assn.
Wylie Aitken, Santa Ana, Robert E. Cartwright, San Francisco, Edward I. Pollock, Los Angeles, Glen T. Bashore, North Fork, Stephen I. Zetterberg, Claremont, J. Nick DeMeo, Santa Rosa, Sanford M. Gage, Beverly Hills, Stephen L. Odgers, Newport Beach, Harvey R. Levine, San Diego, Leonard Sacks, Encino, Joseph Posner, Beverly Hills, for amicus curiae California Trial Lawyers Assn.
Olivia N. appeals from a judgment of nonsuit terminating her action against the National Broadcasting Company and the Chronical Broadcasting Company. Appellant sought damages for physical and emotional injury inflicted by assailants who had seen a television broadcast of a film drama.
A defense motion for summary judgment was denied, and the case was set for trial by jury. Before impanelment of a jury the trial court viewed the film and determined for itself that the film did not serve to incite violent and depraved conduct such as the crimes committed against the plaintiff, and on that basis rendered judgment for defendants.
On appeal from the judgment this court recognized that certain narrowly limited classes of speech may be prevented or punished by the state consistent with the principles of the First Amendment and held that "the trial court's action in viewing the film, and thereupon making fact findings and rendering judgment for respondents, was a violation of appellant's constitutional right to trial by jury." (Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co. (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 383, 389, 141 Cal.Rptr. 511.) Therefore, the judgment was reversed with directions to impanel a jury and proceed to trial of the action.
On remand, appellant's counsel in his opening statement to the jury indicated that the evidence would establish negligence and recklessness on respondents' part, rather than incitement. 1 At the conclusion of appellant's opening statement, respondents moved for a judgment of nonsuit (Code Civ.Proc., § 581c, subd. (a)) on the grounds that appellant admittedly could not meet the test for incitement. (Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) 395 U.S. 444, 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 1829, 23 L.Ed.2d 430.) Appellant's counsel again acknowledged his inability to meet the incitement test; the trial court granted respondents' motion and rendered judgment dismissing the action. Plaintiff again appealed.
A trial court may grant a defendant's motion for nonsuit only if the plaintiff's evidence would not support a jury verdict in plaintiff's favor. (Ewing v. Cloverleaf Bowl (1978) 20 Cal.3d 389, 395, 143 Cal.Rptr. 13, 572 P.2d 1155; see Pike v. Frank G. Hough Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 465, 469, 85 Cal.Rptr. 629, 467 P.2d 229.) Where a nonsuit is granted on the opening statement, factual recitals in the opening statement must be accepted as true. (See Willis v. Gordon (1978) 20 Cal.3d 629, 633-634, 143 Cal.Rptr. 723, 574 P.2d 794.)
At 8 p. m. on September 10, 1974, NBC telecast nationwide, and Chronicle Broadcasting Company broadcast locally, a film entitled "Born Innocent." (Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co., supra, 74 Cal.App.3d 383, 386, 141 Cal.Rptr. 511.) It is alleged that on September 14, 1974, appellant, aged 9, was attacked and forcibly "artificially raped" with a bottle by minors at a San Francisco beach. (Id., at pp. 386-387, 141 Cal.Rptr. 511.) The assailants had viewed and discussed the "artificial rape" scene in "Born Innocent," and the film allegedly caused the assailants to decide to commit a similar act on appellant. Appellant offered to show that NBC had knowledge of studies on child violence and should have known that susceptible persons might imitate the crime enacted in the film. Appellant alleged that "Born Innocent" was particularly likely to cause imitation and that NBC televised the film without proper warning in an effort to obtain the largest possible viewing audience. Appellant alleged that as a proximate result of respondents' telecast, she suffered physical and psychological damage.
Appellant contends that where there is negligence liability could constitutionally be imposed despite the absence of proof of incitement as defined in Brandenburg v. Ohio, supra, 395 U.S. 444, 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 1829, 23 L.Ed.2d 430. Appellant argues in the alternative that a different definition of "incitement" should be applied to the present circumstances.
(Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co., supra, 74 Cal.App.3d 383, 387, 141 Cal.Rptr. 511.) First Amendment rights are accorded a preferred place in our democratic society. (Thomas v. Collins (1945) 323 U.S. 516, 530, 65 S.Ct. 315, 322, 89 L.Ed. 430.) First Amendment protection extends to a communication, to its source and to its recipients. (Va. Pharmacy Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council (1976) 425 U.S. 748, 756, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 1822, 48 L.Ed.2d 346.) "(A)bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." (Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972) 408 U.S. 92, 95, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2289, 33 L.Ed.2d 212; see Consolidated Edison v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980) 447 U.S. 530, 538-539, 100 S.Ct. 2326, 2333-2334, 65 L.Ed.2d 319; Carey v. Brown (1980) 447 U.S. 455, 462-463, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 2290-2291, 65 L.Ed.2d 263; Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15, 24, 91 S.Ct. 1780, 1787, 29 L.Ed.2d 284; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) 376 U.S. 254, 269-270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 720-721, 11 L.Ed.2d 686.) Applied to the electronic media, the First Amendment means that it is the broadcaster that has authority to make programming decisions. (Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. F.C.C. (C.D.Cal.1976) 423 F.Supp. 1064, 1154.)
Motion pictures are accorded First Amendment protections. (Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, supra, 343 U.S. 495, 501, 72 S.Ct. 777, 780, 96 L.Ed. 1098.) (Young v. American Mini Theatres (1976) 427 U.S. 50, 77, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 2455, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (conc. opn. of Powell, J.)) Freedom of speech is not limited to political expression or comment on public affairs. (Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967) 385 U.S. 374, 388, 87 S.Ct. 534, 542, 17 L.Ed.2d 456.) Free speech must "embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period." (Thornhill v. Alabama (1940) 310 U.S. 88, 102, 60 S.Ct. 736, 744, 84 L.Ed. 1093.) The commercial nature of an enterprise does not introduce a non-speech element or relax the scrutiny required by the First Amendment. (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) 435 U.S. 765, 786, fn. 23, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 1421, fn. 23, 55 L.Ed.2d 707; Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 16, 96 S.Ct. 612, 633, 46 L.Ed.2d 659; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. 254, 266, 84 S.Ct. 710, 718, 11 L.Ed.2d 686; Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, supra, 343 U.S. 495, 501-502, 72 S.Ct. 777, 780-781, 96 L.Ed. 1098.)
The electronic media are also entitled to First Amendment protection. (See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) 395 U.S. 367, 386, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 1804, 23 L.Ed.2d 371; Columbia Broadcasting v. Democratic Comm. (1973) 412 U.S. 94, 101-102, 93 S.Ct. 2080, 2085-2086, 36 L.Ed.2d 772; United States v. Paramount Pictures (1948) 334 U.S. 131, 166, 68 S.Ct. 915, 933, 92 L.Ed. 1260.) Television broadcasting poses "unique and special problems not present in the traditional free speech case." (Columbia Broadcasting v. Democratic Comm., supra, 412...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
...relying on Zamora v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 480 F.Supp. 199 (S.D.Fla.1979) and quoting from Oliva N. v. National Broadcasting System, 126 Cal.App.3d 488, 178 Cal.Rptr. 888 (1981).2 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339-40, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3007, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974) (footnote......
-
McCollum v. CBS, Inc., B025565
...(Writers Guild of America, West, Inc. v. F.C.C. (C.D.Cal.1976) 423 F.Supp. 1064, 1154.)" (Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 488, 492-493, 178 Cal.Rptr. 888 ["Olivia II "].) "[T]he life of the imagination and intellect is of comparable import to the presentation of......
-
Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc.
...(Ozzy Ozbourne record that included song "Suicide Solution," which exhorted suicide found not actionable); Olivia N. v. NBC, Inc., 126 Cal.App.3d 488, 178 Cal.Rptr. 888 (Ct.App.1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1108, 102 S.Ct. 3487, 73 L.Ed.2d 1369 (1982) (girl raped with bottle by teenaged gir......
-
Smith v. Novato Unified School Dist.
...of public order by acts that are themselves violent or that tend to incite others to violence"].) Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co. (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 488, 178 Cal.Rptr. 888 drew a distinction between speech that incites violence, and speech that results in a copycat crime. The cour......
-
How the Fifty States View Electronic Data as a “Product”
...movie “as where liability is sought to be imposed directly for the failure to warn”); Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co., 178 Cal. Rptr. 888, 892 (Cal. App. 1981) (“television networks would become significantly more inhibited in the selection of controversial materials if liability wer......
-
Freedom of speech and information privacy: the troubling implications of a right to stop people from speaking about you.
...Murphy, supra note 47, at 2395-96. (107.) NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982). (108.) E.g., Olivia N. v. NBC, Inc., 178 Cal. Rptr. 888 (Ct. App. 1981) (barring recovery where child was sexually abused by minors who allegedly copied a similar crime shown on television); Bill......
-
Suing the Nra for Damages
...result of Osbourne's song. McCollum v. CBS, 249 Cal. Rptr. 187, 188-89, 194, 196 (Ct. App. 1988).256. Olivia N. v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 178 Cal. Rptr. 888, 890-93 (Ct. App. 1981). A young girl who was raped on a beach by a soda bottle sued NBC, claiming that the rapist had imitated a rape scen......
-
Serial killer trading cards and First Amendment values: a defense of content-based regulation of violent expression.
...First Amendment in action brought by girl shot outside theater where producers' violent movie was being shown); Olivia N. v. NBC, Inc., 178 Cal. Rptr. 888 (Ct. App. 1981) (determining that a broadcaster was protected under First Amendment in an action brought by nine-year-old sexually assau......
-
TROLL STORMS AND TORT LIABILITY FOR SPEECH URGING ACTION BY OTHERS: A FIRST AMENDMENT ANALYSIS AND AN INITIAL STEP TOWARD A FEDERAL RULE.
...Liability was imposed on the broadcaster for urging listeners to act in an inherently dangerous manner." Olivia N. v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 178 Cal. Rptr. 888, 894 (Cal. Ct. App. (151.) 358 F. Supp. 3d 516 (W.D.N.C. 2018). (152.) See supra notes 59-63 and accompanying text. (153.) Stricklin, 35......