Court Opinion

ID: 5744320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 16:46:49.856266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:07.721782
License: Public Domain

Stevens, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered after a jury trial which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs. The action is one for damages based on a violation of plaintiffs’ right of privacy under section 51 of the Civil Rights Law. This section, in pertinent part, provides: "Any person whose name, portrait or picture is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained as above provided may maintain an equitable action * * * to prevent and restrain the use * * * and may also sne and recover damages for any injuries sustained".
On September 11, 1952, the plaintiffs and their children were held captive in their own home in Whitemarsh, Pennsylvania, for 19 hours by three escaped convicts. Sometime in the early morning of September 12, 1952, the convicts departed, leaving plaintiffs and their family unharmed. The incident received wide publicity at the time and was given extensive press coverage. Plaintiff James J. Hill, in a statement given to the press almost immediately after the occurrence, stated the family had not been molested or harmed and, save for the restraint, had been treated courteously.
Plaintiffs sought to forget their ordeal, and a few months later plaintiffs and their family moved to Old Greenwich, Connecticut. The move, a result of job promotion, was accelerated because of the September, 1952 incident. Opportunities to capitalize on the occurrence were rejected. The record reveals plaintiffs’ refusals in an attempt to avoid further publicity for the sake of their children.
In the Spring of 1953, a book, “The Desperate Hours”, was written by Joseph Hayes, which was later made into a play and also a picture bearing the same title. The story dealt with three escaped convicts holding a family as hostages in their suburban home. Some of the members of the family were assaulted, profanity was used and in other ways the story differed from the account given by Hill of what had occurred in their home.
In 1954, the play opened for a tryout in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Following conferences with the producer, Life magazine decided to do an article on the play. Thereafter Life arranged *488to have the Whitemarsh home made available for photo coverage, and chiefly at its own expense transported members of the cast to the house where it shot actual scenes from the play. It must be remembered this was the house where the real Hill incident occurred. In connection with and accompanying the article Life featured these scenes. The article, which appeared in Life’s February 28,1955, issue under a heading ‘ ‘ True Crime Inspires Tense Play”, read, in part, as follows: “ Three years ago Americans all over the country read about the desperate ordeal of the James Hill family, who were held prisoners in their home outside Philadelphia by three escaped convicts. Later they read about it in Joseph Hayes’s novel The,Desperate Hours, inspired by the family’s experience. Now they can see the story re-enacted in Haye’s Broadway play based on the book, and next year will see it in his movie, which has been filmed but is being held up until the play has a chance to pay off. ”
Thereafter plaintiffs instituted suit. It is from a judgment in their favor that this appeal is taken.
The right of privacy is purely statutory (Gautier v. Pro-Football, Inc., 304 N. Y. 354, 358). The section is designed “ to prevent the use of an individual’s name for commercial purposes without his consent ” (Orsini v. Eastern Wine Corp., 190 Misc. 235, 236). It is immaterial whether the use by defendants of the name holds the party up to ridicule or contempt since the action is not one for libel (Binns v. Vitagraph Co. of America, 210 N. Y. 51, 54; Callas v. Whisper, Inc., 198 Misc. 829, 831).
“ The test for legally protected privacy may involve either the decency of the public interest in the events involved or the fame or notoriety of the person asserting his privacy interest or both” (1 Harper and James, Torts, § 9.7, p. 687). So too “ either or both of two factors may be involved in justifying a breach of the seal of privacy; the propriety of public information as newsworthy, in the light of the habits, customs and values of our society and the extent to which the plaintiff, either by his voluntary conduct or because it was thrust upon him, has achieved the position of a ‘ public figure ’ and thus become newsworthy ” (ibid., pp. 686-687). New York also requires that the use of the name, etc., be for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade. For the right protected is the right to be protected against the commercial exploitation of one’s personality without his written consent (Civil Rights Law, § 51).
In September, 1952, when the incident occurred, plaintiffs were projected unwillingly into the limelight and, under the test enunciated, had no legally protected privacy so far as legitimate, accurate reporting and fair comment were concerned. *489They were newsworthy. The passage of time tended to dim the public interest both because of other events, actually or apparently of greater public interest or significance, and because plaintiffs themselves avoided capitalizing on the occurrence. In other words, the occurrence had been relegated to the outer fringe of the public consciousness.
When the defendant, in its article of February 28, 1955, revived or intensified interest in the ordeal which plaintiffs had experienced, the use of plaintiffs’ name was primary and not merely incidental to the article (cf. Wallach v. Bacharach, 192 Misc. 979, affd. 274 App. Div. 919). Although the play was fictionalized, Life’s article portrayed it as a re-enactment of the Hills’ experience. It is an inescapable conclusion that this was done to advertise and attract further attention to the play, and to increase present and future magazine circulation as well. It is evident that the article cannot be characterized as a mere dissemination of news, nor even an effort to supply legitimate newsworthy information in which the public had, or might have a proper interest.
Hayes, the author of the play “ The Desperate Hours ”, in an article which appeared January 30, 1955, in The New York Times, had stated the play was fictionalized. This article was available to, and, in fact apparently in the possession of the defendant when its publication of February 28, 1955, appeared. Defendant did not seek to ascertain from Hayes if his play was an account of what happened to the Hills. Defendant merely concluded that basically the play was a re-enactment and so stated. The contention of defendant that it found points of similarity in the book and the occurrence of September 11, 1952, justified neither the identification nor the commercial exploitation of plaintiffs’ name and family with the play.
While there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict on the question of liability, prejudicial error was committed which undoubtedly influenced, improperly, the jury’s determination as to the quantum of damages. Accordingly, a retrial is directed, limited solely to that question.
Since a retrial is being directed on the sole issue of damages, certain matters may be adverted to for the guidance of the-parties. The admission into evidence and viewing of the film by the jury constituted substantial prejudicial error. The film was released almost one year after the article appeared, and subsequent to the institution of the suit. The emotional impact of viewing a highly charged, tense, dramatic film portrayal of incidents of the nature here involved, with accompanying sound effects, was inflammatory and undoubtedly served to influence *490the jury improperly. Because of the remoteness in time it is •doubtful that much, if any, of the public recalled the article or were significantly influenced by it. Elements and factors were introduced by the showing of the film for which defendant should not fairly be held responsible.
The plaintiff James J. Hill was permitted to testify in broad general terms about comments and questions directed to him by various persons, not otherwise identified, concerning his -connection with or relation to the characters portrayed in ‘ ‘ The Desperate Hours ”, and their reaction to his responses. The incidents were not specifically related or, as pointed out, the persons identified. This was error. Defendant could neither disprove the assertions by calling such persons nor could it cross-examine the alleged speakers. “ The better practice would be to call as witnesses for plaintiff, subject to cross-examination, the persons who were supposed to have spoken or acted adversely to plaintiff and to demonstrate, if such demonstration be possible, a connection to the libel” (Macy v. New York World-Tel. Corp., 2 N Y 2d 416, 422). It is true the -observation quoted was made in a libel case. However, it is equally applicable in a case of this nature because of the evil it is designed to prevent. It is the fact of wrongful intrusion on privacy and the state of mind and effect on the Hills which is important. For the right sought to be protected by statute Is the right to be left alone.
Equally improper is it to place into evidence articles which appeared subsequently when no direct causal connection to the offending article is shown either by competent supporting “testimony, or by some proof of identity of language sufficient to permit, if not compel, an inference of causal relationship. Defendant is thus charged with the transgressions of others, if such there were, without any proof of its responsibility therefor.
We find the verdicts grossly excessive. In passing it might be noted the briefs are inordinately and unjustifiably lengthy, and no costs are awarded.
The judgment appealed from should be modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial directed on “the sole issue of damages. As so modified, the judgment appealed from should be otherwise affirmed, without costs to •either party.