|
2001 In an action for public disclosure of private facts (privacy) anything logically related to a matter of public concern is newsworthy and protected from liability; an accident victim has no reasonable expectation that s/he will not be videotaped at an accident scene on a public road, and videotaping the victim therefore is not a privacy invasion, but an accident victim does have a reasonable expectation of privacy when conversing with a nurse, and audiotaping their conversation may be a privacy invasion; the accident victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an airborne ambulance, and videotaping and audiotaping the victim at such a time may be a privacy invasionCitationSHULMAN v GROUP W (Emergency Response) 18 C4 200 [See: Kapellas v Kofman 1 C3 20; Miller v NBC 187 CA3 1463; Diaz v Oakland Tribune 139 CA3 118; Cox v Cohn 420 US 469; Florida Star v BJF 491 U. 524; Aisenson v ABC 220 CA3 146]
|
|
