|
1501 REVIEW GRANTED A victim of a highway accident has no reasonable expectation of privacy at an accident scene, so the act of videotaping him/her is not an invasion of solitude; details of highway accidents are newsworthy and in the public interest, so a broadcast of the accident scene is not a public disclosure of private facts or an appropriation of the accident victim's identity; a person being transported by helicopter-ambulance has a reasonable expectation of privacy, so the act of videotaping him/her may be an invasion of solitude, and a broadcast of the tape may be a public disclosure of private facts; the work of paramedics in helicopters is newsworthy and in the public interest, so broadcasting videotape of a person being treated in a helicopter-ambulance is not an appropriation of identity.CitationSHULMAN v GROUP W (Emergency Response) 51 CA4 850 [See: Hill v NCAA 7 C4 1; Miller v NBC 187 CA3 1463; Noble v Sears 33 CA3 654; Carlisle v Fawcett 201 CA2 733; Dora v Frontline 15 CA4 536, T/AT 7/93]
|
|
