## Facts

- Ronny Zamora, a minor, sued three television networks (CBS, ABC, and NBC) through his parents, who also asserted individual derivative damages.
- Plaintiffs alleged Zamora became “involuntarily addicted” to televised violence from about age five and was thereby “stimulated” to imitate violent acts.
- Plaintiffs claimed the networks negligently failed to use ordinary care to prevent harmful effects from violent programming and that Zamora developed a “sociopathic personality,” became desensitized to violence, and became dangerous.
- Zamora shot and killed his 83-year-old neighbor, Elinor Haggart, on June 4, 1977, and was convicted and imprisoned for offenses arising from the killing.
- The complaint did not identify any specific broadcast, program, episode, or time period as the cause of the homicide, and it did not clearly specify when any alleged duty arose or was breached.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the court granted dismissal with leave to amend, and plaintiffs did not amend.

## Issues

1. Whether television networks owe a cognizable negligence duty to protect a minor viewer from alleged harmful psychological effects of violent programming and from subsequent violent criminal acts.
2. Whether allegations that generalized exposure to televised violence over many years caused a later homicide sufficiently plead proximate cause and foreseeability.
3. Whether imposing tort liability based on the content of non-defamatory violent programming would impermissibly burden speech protected by the First Amendment.
4. Whether courts are institutionally suited to create and administer a broad tort regime effectively regulating television program content.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the networks owed no legally recognized duty of care to the plaintiff on the pleaded theory regarding general program content.
- The court held proximate cause was not adequately alleged because the asserted causal chain was remote and speculative and was not tied to identified broadcasts.
- The court concluded that recognizing liability on this theory would improperly intrude on First Amendment freedoms and would deter protected expression.
- Because plaintiffs did not amend after leave was granted, the dismissal operated as a final judgment for defendants.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence liability requires a legally cognizable duty; courts will not create a broad, novel duty requiring broadcasters to tailor or police general violent content to prevent crimes by viewers absent recognized legal support.
- Proximate cause is not satisfied by an attenuated chain from years of generalized media exposure to the development of a personality condition and then to a particular criminal act, especially where no specific content is identified as causative.
- Tort rules that impose content-based civil liability for non-defamatory, non-obscene programming risk unconstitutional restraint and chilling effects on speech protected by the First Amendment.
- Courts may decline to extend tort law where adjudication would require ongoing content evaluation and standard-setting better suited to legislative or administrative bodies.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed negligence-based claims seeking to hold television networks liable for a viewer’s later homicide allegedly influenced by televised violence, concluding the complaint failed to establish a recognized duty or plausible proximate causation and that imposing such content-based liability would conflict with First Amendment protections and exceed judicially manageable limits.


Zamora v. Columbia Broad. Sys., 480 F. Supp. 199 (S.D. Fla. 1979)