399_C062
RELEASING
ACCIDENT VICTIM PHOTOS INVADED PRIVACY
|
Law Enforcement
Liability |
Personal Injury |
|
Invasion of
privacy |
Emotional Distress |
Editor's Note: This case provides
some insight about what commercial general liability does not cover and why Law
Enforcement Liability coverage is needed for allegations of personal injury
arising from the acts of law enforcement officers.
An
18-year-old girl died as a result of decapitation in an automobile accident.
Two officers arriving at the scene of the accident took numerous photographs of
the girl’s body and e-mailed them to several friends at Halloween purely for
their shock value. The pictures were widely circulated and began showing up on
thousands of Internet web sites. Members of the girl’s family began receiving
malicious anonymous messages with copies of the graphic photos.
The
girl’s family sued the law enforcement agency and the two officers for several
causes of action, including negligent supervision of the officers, invasion of
privacy, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. At trial, the court
ruled for the defendants, determining that only the deceased girl could claim
invasion of privacy, and that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) had no duty
to protect photographs of the dead. The family appealed.
The
appellate court overturned the decision of the lower court on several grounds,
including the finding that the law enforcement agency and its officers were
liable for invasion of privacy because dissemination of the photos served no
legitimate law enforcement or public interest. It stated that the widespread
dissemination of the photos and their use to hurt the family were entirely
predictable once the officers sent them to their friends and that the family
could bring a cause of action for negligent supervision and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. It further determined that the family members
had a common law right of privacy in the death images of the decedent and that
the law enforcement agency owed them a duty of care not to disseminate the
images for the purpose of sensationalism. The case was remanded for a trial and
to determine damages to the family.
Catsouras
v.
01939