## Facts

- Ruth Shulman and her son were seriously injured when their car left a highway, overturned, and landed in a state-owned drainage ditch.
- Emergency responders extracted Shulman and transported her by medical rescue helicopter for treatment.
- A television news crew producing a reality-style emergency-response program accompanied the helicopter crew and filmed Shulman’s rescue and medical care.
- The crew placed a microphone on the flight nurse, recording Shulman’s conversations with the nurse about her injuries and medical condition during treatment.
- Defendants edited and broadcast the footage, including Shulman’s medical conversations, identifying her by her first name, without her consent.
- Shulman later learned the rescue and treatment had been televised; she became paraplegic as a result of the accident.

## Issues

1. Whether filming and audio recording during emergency medical treatment—particularly recording patient-provider conversations inside a rescue helicopter—constituted intrusion upon seclusion.
2. Whether broadcasting footage of the accident, rescue, and medical treatment constituted public disclosure of private facts, or was protected because it concerned a matter of legitimate public interest.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- As to intrusion upon seclusion:
  - The court held there was no actionable intrusion based solely on filming at the open roadside accident scene because the plaintiff lacked an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy there.
  - The court held there were triable issues whether defendants intruded by obtaining access to Shulman’s emergency medical treatment setting and recording her confidential medical conversations via a microphone on the nurse; summary judgment for defendants on this claim was improper to that extent.
- As to public disclosure of private facts:
  - The court largely affirmed summary judgment for defendants, concluding that most of the broadcast fell within legitimate public concern as reporting on a serious accident and emergency response.

## Legal Principles

- Intrusion upon seclusion requires (1) intrusion into a private place, conversation, or matter, and (2) intrusion in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person, evaluated by an objective reasonable-expectation-of-privacy standard.
- Even during emergencies, a patient’s communications with medical personnel in the course of treatment are traditionally private and can support an intrusion claim when recorded without consent.
- Filming and presence at a public accident scene generally do not constitute intrusion where the plaintiff lacks control over the location and cannot reasonably expect the absence of bystanders or media.
- In assessing whether an intrusion is highly offensive, courts consider the nature and extent of the intrusion, the method used, and the extent to which it was justified by legitimate newsgathering objectives.
- The First Amendment does not bar liability for tortious conduct in the course of gathering news, even when the subject matter is newsworthy.
- Public disclosure of private facts requires publicity of private facts that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that are not of legitimate public concern; newsworthiness is construed broadly for accidents and emergency rescues.

## Conclusion

The court distinguished between protected reporting and potentially tortious newsgathering: although a roadside rescue could be filmed and broadcast as newsworthy, recording a patient’s private medical communications during treatment in a rescue helicopter without consent could constitute actionable intrusion.


Shulman v. Group W Prods., Inc., 18 Cal. 4th 200 (Cal. 1998)