Ever wonder why people allow themselves to be seen in the most inane situations on television? Why is it that criminals and other bazaar individuals permit video cameras to roll, and the results to be shown on shows such as COPS? Perhaps it is the need to have at least 15 minutes of fame that smolders inside each of us. But then again, there are some who cherish their privacy, especially in moments of extreme intimacy. A case recently decided by the California Court of Appeal stresses that t.v. cameras do not have the right to intrude in our lives whenever those holding them choose to do so. Some situations do not permit an individual's right of privacy to be violated just to satisfy the public's "right to know".
   In June of 1990, Ruth Shulman and her family were seriously injured in a car crash which caused their vehicle to fall over an embankment. Rescue personnel had to pry her from the wreckage using the "jaws of life." The scene was observed by a crowd of onlookers as the extrication took place. A Mercy Air helicopter rushed to the scene, and transported Mrs. Schulman to the hospital. Along for the ride was a cameraman employed by Group W Productions and 4MN Productions. He was recording for use on the show ON SCENE: EMERGENCY RESPONSE. The flight nurse wore a microphone for recording purposes. While waiting to be loaded on the helicopter, Ruth Shulman's tattered body could be seen on the nationally aired footage. She was heard asking about her family, and stating that she wished to die. Shots taken onboard the helicopter during transport to the hospital showed Ruth and her son being cared for. The flight nurse broadcasts the patients' vital signs. Ruth's face was shown several times, covered by an oxygen mask. Once at the hospital and during the unloading process, Ruth is heard to state, "My upper back hurts", and "I don't feel that great." Unfortunately, Ruth Shulman was left paraplegic as a result of the accident. While still in the hospital, she observed the broadcast of her rescue. She was surprised, having never consented to the recording or broadcast. A lawsuit followed.
   The media defendants eventually filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming there was no legal basis for the suit since their conduct was protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Mercy Air also filed a motion for summary judgment claiming, among other things, that the rescue was newsworthy. Both motions were granted by the trial court, and as if they hadn't suffered enough already, the plaintiffs were socked with costs and fees for the defense of over $350,000.00.
   The plaintiffs had claimed invasion of privacy. This tort involves four distinct privacy interests: 1) Intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs; 2) Public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about the plaintiff; 3) Publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye; and 4) Appropriation, for the defendant's advantage, of the plaintiff's name or likeness. Weighing heavily in the determination of whether or not privacy rights have been infringed is the issue of whether a party has a reasonable expectation of privacy which is not outweighed by a First Amendment right. The appellate court held:

"A privacy claim based on the public disclosure of private facts requires that the facts disclosed had actually been private. Given the strong First Amendment policy favoring news coverage of auto accidents and other catastrophes, combined with the public setting of appellants' accident, to the extent appellants' claims are based on respondents' conduct in videotaping and broadcasting what took place at the accident scene itself, summary judgment was properly granted. . .Involuntary public figures, such as accident victims, lose their right to privacy not only in regard to the accident itself but, to some extent, to other information as well."

"We sympathize with appellants' displeasure at the videotaping and broadcast of their rescue, but reject their contention that some zone of privacy existed at the accident site itself simply because their car was partially obscured by the surrounding terrain and foliage or because onlookers might have been prevented from walking around the rescue scene itself. The natural corollary to this contention is that, had the accident been confined to the roadway and no restrictions placed on spectators, videotaping or photographing their rescue would have been permissible. We decline to hinge the media'a right to freely report accidents and other catastrophes on such chance distinctions."

"It is neither the custom nor the habit of our society that any member of the public at large or its media representatives may hitch a ride in an ambulance and ogle as paramedics care for an injured stranger. Where there can be no expectation of privacy at the scene of an accident in public view, once the ambulance doors swing shut, the unfortunate victim can and should reasonably expect privacy from prying eyes and ears."