Opinion ID: 1161100
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Common Law Right of Privacy

Text: Plaintiffs claim the County is liable for common law invasion of privacy. The County asserts no common law right of privacy exists in Washington. We find no merit to the County's argument on this point. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (1977) provides the general rule for invasion of privacy. [4] It states: One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public. In Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d 123, 580 P.2d 246 (1978), we indicated that a tort action for invasion of the right of privacy exists in Washington. In that case, a newspaper sought disclosure of property and personal tax records of private citizens in a quest to determine whether the county assessor had given special favors to individuals who contributed to the assessor's successful campaign. We affirmed a superior court order requiring a county assessor to disclose the information. The county assessor had declined to disclose the information sought under RCW 42.17.310(1)(c), which exempts [information required of any taxpayer in connection with the assessment or collection of any tax if the disclosure [to such] persons would violate the taxpayer's right to privacy [.] Hearst Corp., 90 Wash.2d at 134, 580 P.2d 246 (quoting RCW 42.17.310(1)(c) (emphasis added)). The statute did not, however, define the term right to privacy. We filled that definition void by adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652(D) as the controlling standard for the statute. In so doing, we stated, [t]he most applicable privacy right would appear to be that expressed in tort law. Tort liability for invasions of privacy by public disclosure of private facts is set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, at 383. Hearst Corp., 90 Wash.2d at 135, 580 P.2d 246. After analyzing the actual language of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652(D), we further stated: In addition to the fact that the tort right is the most widely recognized and established definition of the legal right of privacy, the context in which that right has emerged and the considerations surrounding its development are uniquely analogous to the values and interests which subsection (1)(c) appears designed to protect [right to privacy]. Hearst Corp., 90 Wash.2d at 136, 580 P.2d 246 (emphasis added). Hearst establishes that individuals have a right of privacy, with the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (1977) setting out the guiding principles for the tortious invasion of that right. The County disagrees, relying on Doe v. Group Health Coop., Inc., 85 Wash. App. 213, 932 P.2d 178 (1997), a case in which the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a plaintiffs invasion of privacy claim because the court was unable to verify [the] assumption that Washington recognizes the common law cause of action described in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (1977). Doe v. Group Health Coop., 85 Wash.App. at 221, 932 P.2d 178. The Court of Appeals interpreted our decision in Hillman v. Star Publ'g Co., 64 Wash. 691, 117 P. 594 (1911), as declining to recognize a remedy for an invasion of the so-called right of privacy. Doe v. Group Health Coop., 85 Wash.App. at 222, 932 P.2d 178 (quoting Hillman, 64 Wash, at 695, 117 P. 594). Additionally, the Court of Appeals characterized our opinion in Mark v. Seattle Times, 96 Wash.2d 473, 635 P.2d 1081 (1981), as a case in which we assumed the existence of a cause of action for invasion of privacy but, nevertheless, did not explicitly abandon Hillman. Doe v. Group Health Coop., 85 Wash.App. at 223, 932 P.2d 178. So that no further confusion exists, we explicitly hold the common law right of privacy exists in this state and that individuals may bring a cause of action for invasion of that right. The Court of Appeals' reliance on Hillman is misplaced. In Brink v. Griffith, 65 Wash.2d 253, 257-58, 396 P.2d 793 (1964), we explicitly cited Hillman for the proposition that we have not expressly rejected such an invasion [of privacy] as a basis for a tort claim. To the extent that Doe v. Group Health Coop , implies that invasion of privacy does not exist as a basis for a tort claim in Washington, it is explicitly overruled. Now that we have identified that a common law cause of action for invasion of privacy exists, we must determine whether such cause of action is available to the Plaintiffs in this case. The County argues if any right of privacy was violated it was that of the deceased and not of the relatives of the deceased. The County asserts the general rule is that privacy is a personal interest and may not be brought by a relative of a deceased person. This argument, however, flies in the face of our previous cases, legislation, and memoranda from the County itself. It is clear that had the County employees physically mutilated or otherwise physically interfered with the corpses of the Plaintiffs' relatives, liability would certainly exist. See Wright v. Beardsley, 46 Wash. 16, 20, 89 P. 172 (1907); Gadbury v. Bleitz, 133 Wash. 134, 233 P. 299, 44 A.L.R. 425 (1925). However, the County asserts that because the actions here involved photographs only, no harm was done. That argument is one of degree, not of distinction. The County relies on Smith v. City of Artesia, 108 N.M. 339, 772 P.2d 373 (1989), where the New Mexico Court of Appeals addressed a similar issue. There, members of a city police department improperly circulated autopsy photographs of a murder victim. The murder victim's parents sued and the court held: The cause of action for unreasonable publicity concerning one's private life belongs solely to the one who was the subject of the publicity.... . . . . ... Although New Mexico has granted relatives of a decedent a cause of action for mistreatment of a corpse, the tort is a limited one, derived from the common law notion of `a quasi-property right in a dead body vesting in the nearest relatives of the deceased and arising out of their duty to bury their dead.' Smith, 108 N.M. at 341, 772 P.2d 373 (quoting Infield v. Cope, 58 N.M. 308, 312, 270 P.2d 716 (1954)). See also Fitch v. Voit, 624 So.2d 542, 543 (Ala.1993) (decedent's family had no cause of action against newspaper for invasion of privacy after newspaper published photograph depicting decedent, describing her as dying of cancer); Lambert v. Garlo, 19 Ohio App.3d 295, 484 N.E.2d 260 (1985) (relatives of decedent did not have a claim for invasion of privacy against coroner who stated that decedent was a pusher); Swickard v. Wayne County Med. Exam'r, 438 Mich. 536, 553-54, 475 N.W.2d 304 (1991) (constitutional invasion of privacy rights of family of decedent not implicated where county coroner was compelled to release autopsy report and toxicology results regarding deceased district court judge to newspaper). Plaintiffs, however, point to other cases where courts have held that family members of decedents have a privacy right in records regarding their deceased relatives. In Katz v. National Archives & Records Admin, 862 F.Supp. 476 (D.D.C.1994), aff'd 68 F.3d 1438 (1995), the court held: [T]he Kennedy family has a clear privacy interest in preventing the disclosure of both the x-rays and the optical photographs taken during President Kennedy's autopsy.... However, there can be no mistaking that the Kennedy family has been traumatized by the prior publication of the unauthorized records and that further release of the autopsy materials will cause additional anguish.... ... [T]he Court finds that allowing access to the autopsy photographs would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the Kennedy family's privacy. Katz, 862 F.Supp. at 485-86. See also Badhwar v. United States Dep't of Air Force, 829 F.2d 182, 185-86 (D.C.Cir. 1987) (families of deceased aircraft pilots have a privacy interest in autopsy reports); New York Times Co. v. NASA, 782 F.Supp. 628 (D.D.C. 1991) (reporter's request to obtain disclosure of tape-recorded voice communications aboard the Challenger space shuttle on date of accident killing seven astronauts denied as unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the astronauts' families). Plaintiffs also rely on Douglas v. Stokes, 149 Ky. 506, 149 S.W. 849 (1912), where the Kentucky Supreme Court faced a similar issue. In that case, twin boys born connected at the sternum died shortly after birth. The parents hired a photographer to make 12 pictures of the twins. The photographer made an extra picture and obtained a copyright of that picture from the United States Copyright office. The parents filed suit to recover damages for the photographer's use of the negative, claiming it had been done against their consent and that by the exposure of the photographs they had been humiliated and their feelings and sensibilities had been wounded. Douglas, 149 Ky. at 507, 149 S.W. 849. A jury verdict was rendered for the parents and the photographer appealed, claiming the parents had no cause of action against him. In affirming the judgment, the Kentucky Supreme Court stated: The photographer had no authority to make the photographs except by [the parents'] authority, and when he exceeded his authority he invaded their right.... The most tender affections of the human heart cluster about the body of one's dead child. A man may recover for any injury or indignity done the body and it would be a reproach to the law if physical injuries might be recovered for and not those incorporal injuries which would cause much greater suffering and humiliation. ... If the defendant had wrongfully taken possession of the nude body of the plaintiffs dead children and exposed it to public view in an effort to make money out of it, it would not be doubted that an injury had been done them to recover for which an action might be maintained. When he wrongfully used the photograph of it a like wrong was done; the injury differing from that supposed, in degree but not in kind. Douglas, 149 Ky. at 509, 149 S.W. 849 (emphasis added). We agree with the Plaintiffs' interpretation of the common law right of privacy and recognize that the cases relied upon by Plaintiffs are more consistent with our own jurisprudence on this issue than those relied upon by the County. In Cowles Publ'g Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wash.2d 712, 748 P.2d 597 (1988), we identified the nature of facts protected by the right of privacy, stating: Every individual has some phases of his life and his activities and some facts about himself that he does not expose to the public eye, but keeps entirely to himself or at most reveals only to his family or to close personal friends. Sexual relations, for example, are normally entirely private matters, as are family quarrels, many unpleasant or disgraceful or humiliating illnesses, most intimate personal letters, most details of a man's life in his home, and some of his past history that he would rather forget. When these intimate details of his life are spread before the public gaze in a manner highly offensive to the ordinary reasonable man, there is an actionable invasion of his privacy, unless the matter is one of legitimate public interest. Cowles Publ'g Co., 109 Wash.2d at 721, 748 P.2d 597 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D, at 386 (1977)). See also Seattle Firefighters Union Local No. 27 v. Hollister, 48 Wash.App. 129, 135, 737 P.2d 1302 (1987). We fail to see how autopsy photographs of the Plaintiffs' deceased relatives do not constitute intimate details of the Plaintiffs' lives or are not facts Plaintiffs do not wish exposed before the public gaze. Furthermore, our holding is supported by RCW 68.50.105, which declares a public policy that autopsy records regarding deceased persons remain confidential and distributed only to a select few. That statute states: Autopsies, post mortemsReports and records confidentialExceptions. Reports and records of autopsies or post mortems shall be confidential, except that the following persons may examine and obtain copies of any such report or record: The personal representative of the decedent as defined in RCW 11.02.005, any family member, the attending physician, the prosecuting attorney or law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction, public health officials, or to the department of labor and industries in cases in which it has an interest under RCW 68.50.103. RCW 68.50.105 (emphasis added). See State v. Petersen, 47 Wash.2d 836, 838, 289 P.2d 1013 (1955) (Autopsy reports remain confidential even after they are shared with parties outlined in statute. If this was not so, then a prosecutor, after obtaining an autopsy report, could pass it on to others, and the legislative pronouncement that such reports are confidential would be violated. (emphasis added)). In addition to RCW 68.50.105, a November 4, 1994 memorandum from the County to staff of the Medical Examiner's office indicates the County recognized the confidential nature of autopsy reports: In the past, we have had a few prominent people come to our office that have required an autopsy. Photographs have been taken by employees of these people for personal collections. The only photographs that should be taken of individuals are for investigation and autopsy purposes only. Please destroy any photographs that you may be keeping for personal reasons, or place the photo(s) in the case file. Any employee found with these photos in their possession without justification, will be subject to severe disciplinary action. Clerk's Papers (Hyde-Lucas) at 264. With those two examples of the confidential nature of autopsy reports in mind, we can only conclude that, by displaying the autopsy photographs, a matter private to the lives of the Plaintiffs was given publicity by the County. In none of the cases relied upon by the County is there mention of a statute analogous to RCW 68.50.105. This statute reflects a public policy identified by the Legislature that records made during an autopsy remain confidential and should be released only to those persons which have a genuine interest in the reports. The County's assertion that Plaintiffs have no privacy interest in the autopsy records is refuted by RCW 68.50.105, which requires confidentiality, and by the County's own directive to its employees not to appropriate and display autopsy records. To hold, as the County would suggest, that the relatives of a decedent have no cause of action, no matter how egregious the act, is counterintuitive. We conclude, instead, that the relatives of the deceased have a protectable privacy interest. Our conclusion is supported by Loft v. Fuller, 408 So.2d 619 (FlaApp.1981). There, the Florida Court of Appeals addressed the right of privacy of family members after a book had been published containing certain information regarding one of their deceased relatives. The court recognized that case authority was split on whether the deceased's relatives may recover for invasion of their own privacy interests even though they were not personally the focus of the publicity in question. Although the court determined the plaintiffs could not maintain an action for invasion of privacy because the appellants have not alleged any independent violation of their own personal privacy rights, Loft, 408 So.2d at 624, the court stated:. We are wary of a blanket rule barring all relatives of a deceased from bringing a common law invasion of privacy action simply because the relatives were not directly involved in the publicity. However, in our view such relatives must shoulder a heavy burden in establishing a cause of action. When there are unusual circumstances, such as those that were involved in most of the cases which have recognized claims by the relatives, it may be that a defendant's conduct towards a decedent will be found to be sufficiently egregious to give rise to an independent cause of action in favor of members of decedent's immediate family. Loft, 408 So.2d at 624. We agree. We hold the immediate relatives of a decedent have a protectable privacy interest in the autopsy records of the decedent. That protectable privacy interest is grounded in maintaining the dignity of the deceased. We also hold the trial court erred in granting the County's CR 12(b)(6) and summary judgment motions on this issue. The County's actions in these cases are sufficiently egregious to enable the families of the deceased to maintain their own action. Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to require trial on this issue.