Zamora v. Columbia Broadcasting System
Decision Date | 19 November 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 78-1718-Civ.-WMH.,78-1718-Civ.-WMH. |
Citation | 480 F. Supp. 199 |
Parties | Ronny ZAMORA, a minor, by and through his father and next friend, Frank Zamora, Individually; and Yolanda Zamora, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, a New York Corporation; American Broadcasting Company, a New York Corporation; and National Broadcasting Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Ellis S. Rubin, Nelson A. Faerber, Jr., Charles H. Sinclair, Miami, Fla., for plaintiffs.
William B. Killian, Timothy B. Dyk, Alan N. Braverman, Ronald E. Guttman, CBS, Inc., New York City, Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, Fla., Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D. C., for defendant Columbia Broadcasting System.
William Snow Frates and James B. Tilghman, Jr., Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richman & Greer, P. A., Miami, Fla., for defendant American Broadcasting Co.
Daniel P. S. Paul, Paul & Thomson, Miami, Fla., Floyd Abrams, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, New York City, for defendant National Broadcasting Co., Inc.
Ronny Zamora, a minor, together with his father and mother sued the National Broadcasting Company, Columbia Broadcasting System and American Broadcasting Company for damages. Diversity and requisite amount are asserted as the bases for jurisdiction. In brief, the plaintiffs alleged that Ronny Zamora, from the age of five years (he was age 15 when this action was filed) has become involuntarily addicted to and "completely subliminally intoxicated" by the extensive viewing of television violence offered by the three defendants. The defendants are charged with breaching their duty to plaintiffs by failing to use ordinary care to prevent Ronny Zamora from being "impermissibly stimulated, incited and instigated" to duplicate the atrocities he viewed on television. The minor plaintiff, it is further charged, developed a sociopathic personality, became desensitized to violent behavior and became a danger to himself and others.
On June 4, 1977, in Miami Beach, Florida, Ronny Zamora shot and killed his 83 year old neighbor, Elinor Haggart. The complaint does not allege the circumstances under which the shooting took place. We must conclude from the complaint (as was a well-publicized fact) that young Zamara was convicted of charges growing out of the killing. The complaint further alleges that he has been deprived of his liberty and imprisoned; has become a sociopathic personality and cannot lead a normal life. The complaint also alleges that both parents have sustained certain losses for which they make claim. There is no allegation that any particular program incited young Zamora to the action in question or that his viewing of one network was more or less frequent than his viewing of others. Neither is there any allegation as to when in the ten-year span referred to the suggested duty (and consequent failure to respond) applied to any one or all of the defendants, nor whether the minor plaintiff's conduct was the product of pre-duty exposure or post-duty influence.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint contending variously that to permit the claims as stated would abridge their first amendment rights; that no duty of the type alleged exists by statute or otherwise and that in any event, the complaint wholly fails to set forth a legal or factual basis to support the charge of proximate cause. The Court agrees with these positions. The complaint was dismissed by separate order giving the plaintiffs leave to amend. The plaintiffs have elected not to amend. By the terms of the Court's prior order, this order becomes the final judgment of the Court.
The parties agree that the determination of whether the allegations in the complaint set forth a claim cognizable by the Courts, is essentially one of law. Due to the novel basis for the claim, there is little precedent within which to seek other than general instruction.
Prosser and Wade in their work, Cases and Materials on Torts, 5th Edition (1971), p. 150 state:
Is there or should there be here "an obligation, recognized by the law requiring the actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct . . ." Simon v. Tampa Electric Co., 202 So.2d 209, 213 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1967). As there is no such obligation (as demanded by plaintiffs) presently articulated in the law, the merit—the legal validity—of the claim must be examined. In so doing, a consideration of the commentary of Harper and James "Law of Torts" Vol. 2 (1956), p. 1132, Section 20.4 is appropriate.
Such considerations, no doubt, fathered the common law doctrine applied in Florida, that negligence unconnected with physical injury will not provide the basis (the legal "cause") for mental or emotional injuries, Kirksey v. Jernigan, (Fla.1950) 45 So.2d 188; Ellington v. United States, (M.D.Fla.) 404 F.Supp. 1165, except in limited circumstances;1 the concept that the nature of the claims presented in Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170, 174 N.E. 441 (1931) would cause exposure to the actor of "indeterminate" classes, amounts and times, and the statement of the 5th Circuit in DeBardeleben Marine Corp. v. United States, 451 F.2d 140, 148 (5th Cir. 1971):
Of interest also is the holding and language of Yuhas v. Mudge, 129 N.J.Super. 207, 322 A.2d 824 (1974) where the plaintiff was injured by a product advertised in defendant's magazine.
Id. at 825.
The complex of weaknesses presented by plaintiffs' complaint join in requiring dismissal.2 The generality which gives rise to defendants' purely procedural attack also requires the finding that the plaintiffs seek the imposition of a duty (a standard of care) which has no valid basis and would be against public policy. A recognition of the "cause" claimed by the plaintiffs would provide no recognizable standard for the television industry to follow. The impositions pregnant in such a standard are awesome to consider. Here the three major networks are charged with anticipating the minor's alleged voracious intake of violence on a voluntary basis; his parents' apparent acquiescence in this course, presumably without recognition of any problem and finally that young Zamora would respond with a criminal act of the type in question.3 Again, wholly apart from additional procedural problems which should be noted,4 the question is appropriate; how and why should the Court create such a wide expansion in the law of torts in Florida? (passing for the moment the important...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
...of the first amendment. 1 Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 565 F.Supp. 802 (S.D.Tex.1983), 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. Ro......
-
McCollum v. CBS, Inc.
...some sound effects demonstrated on television by rotating a lead pellet around in an inflated balloon); Zamora v. Columbia Broadcasting System (1979, S.D.Fla.) 480 F.Supp. 199 (minor plaintiff had become so addicted to and desensitized by television violence that he developed a sociopathic ......
-
Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc.
...dismissed despite the fact that the perpetrator uttered a line from the film while committing the homicide); Zamora v. C.B.S., Inc., 480 F.Supp. 199 (S.D.Fla.1979) (fifteen-year-old unsuccessfully sued television networks for violent programming that allegedly caused him to commit criminal ......
-
Olivia N. v. National Broadcasting Co.
...430; see Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, supra, 360 U.S. 684, 689, 79 S.Ct. 1362, 1365, 3 L.Ed.2d 1512; Zamora v. Columbia Broadcasting System (S.D.Fla.1979) 480 F.Supp. 199, 206.) The trial court's determination that the First Amendment bars appellant's claim where no incitement is all......
-
How the Fifty States View Electronic Data as a “Product”
...and take action in reliance on that forecast”), aff’d mem., 204 F.3d 1123 (11th Cir. 1999)); Zamora v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems, 480 F. Supp. 199, 202 (S.D. Fla. 1979) (suit against television broadcaster for “violent” programming has “no valid basis and would be against public policy”......
-
Serial killer trading cards and First Amendment values: a defense of content-based regulation of violent expression.
...studies were based on active, and often graphic, violence."). (30) See Eclipse Enters., 942 F. Supp. at 807 (citing Zamora v. CBS, 480 F. Supp. 199 (S.D. Fla. 1979) (finding no cause of action against networks for child "intoxicated" by television who shot and killed a neighbor); Bill v. Su......