FAY YOUNG AND FORREST YOUNG ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
THAT WAS THE WEEK THAT WAS A/K/A TW-3 ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The right of privacy lapses upon the death of the person who enjoyed it, and descendants cannot recover for invasion of privacy after the person's death.
Plaintiffs, descendants of a deceased woman, sued a television network for invasion of privacy after a broadcast made shortly after her death. The bro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Diversity Of Citizenship cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The National Broadcasting Company’s nationwide television program “That Was The Week That Was” on April 20, 1965, contained this statement:
“Mrs. Katherine Young of Syracuse, New York, who died at 99 leaving 5 sons, 5 daughters, 67 grandchildren, 72 great-grandchildren, and 73 greatgréat-grandchildren — gets our First Annual Booby Prize in the Birth Control Sweepstakes.”
This telecast occurred approximately fourteen days after the death of Mrs. Young. Two of Mrs. Young’s sons filed suit for invasion of right of privacy, as a class action on behalf of themselves and approximately 300 other descendants of their deceased mother, including children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren.
Jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship. Ohio law controls.
Plaintiffs prayed for $5,000,000 compensatory damages, $5,000,000 for unjust enrichment and $5,000,000 in punitive damages. District Judge Thomas D. Lambros granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an opinion published at 312 F.Supp. 1337. Reference is made to the opinion of the District Court for a more detailed statement of the case. We affirm.
A right of action for invasion of privacy is recognized under Ohio law. Housh v. Peth, 165 Ohio St. 35, 133 N.E. 2d 340. The general rule, as applied by this Court in Cordell v. Detective Publications, 419 F. 2d 989 (6th Cir. 1969) is that:
“[T]he right lapses with the death of the person who enjoyed it, and one cannot recover for this kind of invasion of the privacy of a relative, no matter how close the relationship.”
We find no Ohio decision to the contrary and must assume that Ohio courts would follow the general rule. If the above quoted statement be construed as an invasion of the privacy of Mrs. Young, her descendants have no right of action.
Plaintiffs-appellants contend that they have the right to maintain a suit for the invasion of their own privacy and the privacy of the descendants whom they undertake to represent by class action. We find that no such right of action exists under the averments of the complaint in the present ease.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loft v. Fuller, 408 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
-
Fletcher v. Fla. Publ'g Co., 40 Fla. Supp. 1 (Duval Cty. Cir. Ct. 1974)
-
Rawls v. The Conde Nast Publ'ns, Inc., 446 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1971)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mrs. Alline E. Cordell v. Detective Publ'ns, Inc., 419 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1969)