upholding liability of television station for trespass where news crew was sent into a public restaurant with cameras “rolling” and failed to leave when the restaurant manager requested them to do so
How later courts described this case
- upholding liability of television station for trespass where news crew was sent into a public restaurant with cameras “rolling” and failed to leave when the restaurant manager requested them to do so
- “As a general rule, exemplary damages are recoverable in all actions ex delicto based upon tortious acts which involve ingredients of malice, fraud, oppression, insult, wanton or reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights....”
- upholding plaintiffs recovery in trespass suit against defendant’s camera crew which filmed restaurant cited for health-code violations
- punitive damages recoverable in ex delicto actions based upon malice, fraud, wanton or reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights or where the wrong is aggravated by evil motive
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Murphy, P. J. (dissenting in part).
While I agree with the majority that defendant CBS committed a trespass and is accountable in compensatory damages therefor, I would not award punitive damages on the particular facts in this case. It is clear from the record that, in dispatching reporters to *496 plaintiff restaurant, defendant was not motivated by actual malice or such an intentional disregard of plaintiff’s rights as would justify the imposition of punitive damages (87 CJS, Trespass, § 112, p 1068). The defendant was merely pursuing a newsworthy item in the overly aggressive but good faith manner that characterizes the operation of the news media today. To the date of this opinion, it may be safely said that the news media has rarely been taken to task for the type of unwarranted intrusion presented in this proceeding. (See, generally, 28 ALR Fed 904, First Amendment as Immunizing Newsman from Liability for Tortious Conduct While Gathering News.) In this sensitive and evolving First Amendment area, I would permit this precedent-setting opinion to stand as a warning to all news gatherers that future trespasses may well be met with an award of punitive damages (cf. Dietemann v Time, Inc., 284 F Supp 925, 932 , affd 449 F2d 245).
Lane, Markewich and Sandler, JJ., concur with Lupiano, J.; Murphy, P. J., dissents in part in an opinion.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on January 19, 1977, modified, on the law, to the extent of reinstating the jury’s award of compensatory damages, severing the claim to punitive damages and remanding the matter for a trial on the issue of punitive damages and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.