Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantmotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment
tortplaintiffdefendantmotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

American Biomedical Group, Inc. v. Techtrol, Inc., 374 P.3d 820, 2016 OK 55
View Case »
Sanchez v. City of New York, 266 A.D.2d 127, 698 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 09822
View Case »
Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, & Helpers of America, 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 453 N.E.2d 666, 116 Lab.Cas. P 56,408, 6 O.B.R. 421
View Case »
State St. Trust Co. v. Ernst, 147 Misc. 704, 264 N.Y.S. 555
View Case »
Schurk v. Christensen, 80 Wash.2d 652, 497 P.2d 937
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Samuel v. Curtis Pub. Co., 122 F.Supp. 327

Facts

The defendant published a picture of the plaintiff in the February 6, 1954, issue of the Saturday Evening Post, depicting him on the Golden Gate Bridge trying to persuade a woman not to jump. The picture was first published in the San Francisco Call-Bulletin on April 22, 1952, the day the woman committed suicide. The plaintiff claimed invasion of privacy, arguing that the publication of the photograph was not necessary to the accompanying article about suicides.

The defendant published a picture of plaintiff in the February 6, 1954, issue of the Saturday Evening Post. In this picture plaintiff was standing on the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge attempting to persuade a woman who was over the side of the bridge not to jump into the water.

Issue

Whether the publication of the plaintiff's photograph constituted an invasion of privacy and if so, whether that invasion was privileged.

Whether the publication of the plaintiff's photograph constituted an invasion of privacy and if so, whether that invasion was privileged.

Rule

In California, an invasion of the right of privacy occurs when a photograph is published in a manner that offends the sensibilities of a normal person, and such invasion may be privileged if the publication is newsworthy and of general public interest.

In California there are two elements in the tort of invasion of the right of privacy. The first is whether privacy has been invaded and the second is, if so, was that invasion privileged.

Analysis

The court analyzed the photograph and determined that it did not portray anything that would shock the ordinary sense of decency or propriety. The plaintiff was not depicted in a derogatory manner, and his actions were seen as commendable. Therefore, the court concluded that the publication did not constitute an actionable invasion of privacy.

The Court finds that no reasonable person could find anything in the appearance or conduct of Mr. Samuel which would cause the publisher of the picture to have reason to believe that the picture would offend the sensibilities of a normal person. Thus, under the Gill v. Hearst Pub. Co. case, supra, it is the duty of the Court to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Conclusion

The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the publication was privileged and did not invade the plaintiff's right to privacy.

Accordingly, the motion for a summary judgment on behalf of the defendant is hereby granted.

Who won?

The defendant prevailed in the case because the court found that the publication of the photograph was newsworthy and did not constitute an invasion of privacy.

The Court also finds that the publication of this picture by Curtis was a privileged publication. When first published in the San Francisco newspaper, it was privileged because it was newsworthy and of general public interest.

You must be