Magenis v. Fisher Broadcasting, 103 Ore. App. 555; 798 P.2d 1106, 18 MLR 1229 (Or.CtAp 1990)

On May 9, 1986, a KATU-TV news crew accompanied the police on a raid on Timothy and Katy Magenis' home. The crew taped the police action and broadcast a report that night.

On November 18, 1987, Timothy and Katy Magenis filed false light and intrusion suits, claiming that the television crew "trespassed upon...plaintiffs' seclusion when they accompanied police officers, who were executing a warrant to search plaintiffs' residence, and filmed the raid with video cameras...and that the defendants placed them in a false light by broadcasting the film on television."

False Light:

The plaintiffs allege, in part:

"Defendants unreasonably placed plaintiffs in a false light before the public by broadcasting over defendant Fisher Broadcasting, Inc.'s television station, KATU, on May 9, 1986, that plaintiffs were involved with stolen vehicles and narcotics."

Judgment for D.

Statute of limitations/False Light:

False light falls under ORS 12.120(2) which sets a 1 year limitation on libel and slander suits "when a claim characterized as false light alleges facts that also constitute a claim for defamation." Note, "catch-all statute" ORS 12.110(1) sets 2 year limit.

Citing Dean v. Guard Publishing, the court says libel and false light "are similar."

Intrusion:

The Plaintiffs' "contend that defendants had no right to enter their property without permission, that they were trespassers and that, as a result, their entry was unreasonable as a matter of law....

Plaintiffs' claim, however, is for invasion of privacy, not trespass. It is not sufficient that they prove that defendants entered their property without permission. In McLain v. Boise Cascade Corp., 271 Or 549, 556, 533 P2d 343 (1975), the Supreme Court held that the general rule permitting
recovery for invasion of privacy is stated in Restatement (Second) Torts, @ 652B:

"One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person."

As the Supreme Court stated, "Trespass alone cannot automatically change an otherwise reasonable surveillance into an unreasonable one." In determining whether the defendant's conduct was tortious, the fact that it constituted an unlawful trespass is only one factor to be considered.

Presumably, a jury could find other factors relevant to whether the defendant's conduct was "highly offensive," including the extent of the intrusion, the context, conduct and circumstances surrounding the intrusion, the defendant's motives, the setting into which defendant intruded and the plaintiff's expectation of privacy. See Miller v. Nat. Broadcasting, Co., 187 Cal App 3rd 1463, 232 Cal Rptr 668 (1986). The trial court correctly allowed the jury to decide that question....

6. The trial court instructed the jury:

"I instruct you that not every intrusion is wrongful. In order for the defendants' conduct to constitute an invasion of privacy, their conduct must have been intrusive and highly offensive to a reasonable person. It is for you the jury to determine if Channel 2's conduct was intrusive beyond merely entering the plaintiffs' property.

"In order to determine whether the conduct of Ms. Poole and Channel 2 was reasonable, not highly offensive, you are to consider all of the evidence presented at trial.

"Unless Channel 2 entered the plaintiffs' property in a highly obtrusive and offensive manner, you must return a verdict in Channel 2's favor."