## Facts

- Nicole Catsouras, age 18, died in a 2006 automobile crash; her body was photographed at the scene by California Highway Patrol (CHP) personnel during the investigation.
- The Catsouras family alleged CHP Officers Thomas O’Donnell and Aaron Reich e-mailed graphic accident-scene photographs of Nicole’s mutilated remains to recipients with no official investigative purpose.
- The photographs allegedly spread widely online after recipients forwarded them, leading to repeated unsolicited exposure to the images.
- The family alleged anonymous users used the images to harass and taunt them, including by sending links and messages referencing the photographs.
- The family claimed severe and ongoing emotional distress and related harms, including changes to living arrangements and the need for psychological treatment.

## Issues

1. Whether CHP officers owed a duty of care to surviving family members not to disseminate death-scene photographs, supporting negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
2. Whether surviving family members have a legally cognizable privacy interest in death images of the decedent’s body sufficient to state a claim for public disclosure of private facts.
3. Whether dissemination of the photographs by CHP officers stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of a federal constitutional right.
4. Whether CHP could face liability under California law for officers’ alleged conduct, including scope-of-employment and public-entity liability limits.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissals of the state-law claims against the officers, holding the complaint adequately alleged a duty and foreseeable emotional harm sufficient to proceed on negligence-based theories, including negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- The court held the family alleged a sufficient privacy interest in accident-scene photographs of the decedent’s corpse to state a claim for invasion of privacy based on public disclosure of private facts.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 cause of action, concluding the allegations did not show deprivation of a recognized federal constitutional right in this context.
- The court reversed judgment on the pleadings for CHP, allowing claims against the public entity to proceed under California law based on the alleged conduct of its officers and rejecting the argument that lack of insurance coverage should defeat liability at the pleading stage.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the surviving state-law claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under California negligence doctrine, a duty may be recognized where emotional harm to close family members is foreseeable and the policy factors favor liability, including blameworthiness of the conduct and prevention of future harm.
- In California, negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort; it is a negligence theory requiring duty, breach, causation, and damages.
- Although relatives generally do not assert a decedent’s personal privacy rights, surviving family members may plead a privacy-based claim when state actors allegedly misuse official death images in a non-official, sensational manner and the disclosure intrudes on dignitary and emotional interests tied to the handling and depiction of the decedent’s remains.
- Public disclosure of private facts may be stated where the disclosure concerns private, highly offensive material and is not justified by legitimate public concern as alleged.
- A § 1983 claim requires deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law; absent a clearly recognized federal constitutional right covering the alleged disclosure, dismissal is proper even if state tort remedies remain available.
- A public entity may face liability under California law for tortious acts of employees within the scope of employment at the pleading stage; insurance-coverage disputes do not, by themselves, bar liability.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the Catsouras family’s California tort claims to proceed based on alleged non-official dissemination of graphic death images by CHP officers and recognized a protectable survivor privacy interest in such images, while rejecting a federal civil-rights theory under § 1983.


Catsouras v. Dep’t of Cal. Highway Patrol, 181 Cal. App. 4th 856, 104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352 (Ct. App. 2010)