Flynn v. Higham

41 Citing cases

  1. Catsouras v. Department of California Highway Patrol

    181 Cal.App.4th 856 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 90 times
    Holding that trial court erred in granting a demurrer that dismissed claims against individual patrol officers and a § 815.2 vicarious liability claim against the California Highway Patrol

    California law clearly provides that surviving family members have no right of privacy in the context of written media discussing, or pictorial media portraying, the life of a decedent. Any cause of action for invasion of privacy in that context belongs to the decedent and expires along with him or her. ( Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 145] ( Flynn).) The publication of death images is another matter, however.

  2. Miller v. National Broadcasting Co.

    187 Cal.App.3d 1463 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 161 times
    Holding that defendant's unauthorized broadcast of sensitive, private matters was sufficient showing of reckless disregard

    "1. Plaintiffs Brownie Miller and Marlene Belloni have no actionable claim for invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress based upon their alleged viewing of NBC broadcasts allegedly depicting their (now deceased) relative, Mr. Miller. Flynn v. Higham, 149 Cal.App.3d 677, 683 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 145] (1983); Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal.2d 315 [ 239 P.2d 876] (1952); Hendrickson v. California Newspapers, Inc., 48 Cal.App.3d 59 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 429] (1975); Grimes v. Carter, 241 Cal.App.2d 694, 702 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 808, 19 A.L.R.3d 1310] (1966). "2.

  3. Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc.

    42 Cal.3d 234 (Cal. 1986)   Cited 82 times
    Holding that the restrictions on liability for defamation apply equally to false light claims

    y of nondefamation causes of action, including, abuse of process ( Thornton v. Rhoden (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 80 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 706, 23 A.L.R.3d 1152]; Twyford v. Twyford (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 916 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 145]; Younger v. Solomon (1974) 38 Cal.App.3d 289 [ 113 Cal.Rptr. 113]; Umansky v. Urquhart (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 368 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 547]); intentional infliction of mental distress ( Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 393]; Lerette v. DeanWitter Organization, Inc. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 573 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 592]; Pettitt v. Levy (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 484 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 650]; Scott v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 277 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 609]); inducing breach of contracts ( Agostini v. Strycula (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 804 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 314]; Scott v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,supra); interference with prospective economic advantage ( Brody v. Montalbano (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 725 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 206]); fraud and negligence ( Pettitt v. Levy, supra). In Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 145], the same Court of Appeal that decided the instant case considered whether a false publication concerning a deceased person, barred if brought as a libel action, would support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court held that "to allow an independent cause of action for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on the same acts which would not support a defamation action, would allow plaintiffs to do indirectly what they could not do directly.

  4. Thompson v. Grillo

    No. B229957 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2011)

    Appellants' reasoning is supported by the case law. The leading case comes from Division One of this district, Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677. Defendant Higham wrote a biography about deceased actor Erroll Flynn, describing him as a homosexual and a Nazi spy. Flynn's children sued for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.

  5. Carafano v. Metrosplash.com Inc.

    207 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2002)   Cited 28 times
    Concluding that when a negligence and defamation claim are premised on the same allegedly false statements, that the negligence claim fails when the alleged statements are determined not to be defamatory

    Thus, Plaintiff's attempt to recover damages from Defendants based on the asserted acts or omissions of Defendants fails with Plaintiff's defamation claim. As mentioned above, Plaintiff argues that the facts giving rise to the negligence claim consist of far more than defamatory words. In support, she cites to the sole case of Flynn v. Higham, 149 Cal.App.3d 677, 682, 197 Cal.Rptr. 145 (1983), wherein the court did not allow an independent cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the same acts which would not support a defamation action. The Flynn court, however, distinguished its case from another case wherein a court did allow an infliction of emotional distress claim even though it dismissed the slander claim.

  6. Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.

    668 F. Supp. 1408 (C.D. Cal. 1987)   Cited 23 times
    In Dworkin, the Ninth Circuit recognized that without such a rule, any defective defamation claim could be revived by pleading an IIED claim.

    Whatever the label, Dworkin cannot maintain a separate cause of action for mental and emotional distress where the gravamen is defamation. See Wilson v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, Inc., 111 A.D.2d 807, 490 N.Y.S.2d 553, 555, aff'd, 66 N.Y.2d 988, 499 N.Y.S.2d 395, 489 N.E.2d 1297 (1985); Fisher, 402 N YS.2d at 992, 373 N.E.2d at 1217; Flynn v. Higham, 149 Cal.App.3d 677, 681-82, 197 Cal.Rptr. 145 (1983). See also Silvester v. American Broadcasting Co., 650 F. Supp. 766, 780 (S.D.Fla. 1986) (applying Florida Law).

  7. Taylor v. David

    No. B307954 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2021)

    Although appellants argued this point in more detail below, on appeal they cite only one case to support their contention: Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677 (Flynn). The plaintiffs in that case were the heirs of the late actor Errol Flynn.

  8. Ratcliff v. Redfern

    No. A125050 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2010)

    Emotional distress caused by defamation is a compensable component of damages recoverable in a defamation action, but does not give rise to a separate cause of action on a separate tort theory. (Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677.) To allow another tort cause of action for emotional distress “ ‘based on the same acts which would not support a defamation action, would allow plaintiffs to do indirectly what they could not do directly [and] render meaningless any defense of truth or privilege.’ ”

  9. Gilbert v. Sykes

    147 Cal.App.4th 13 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 310 times
    Holding prominent plastic surgeon, who alleged former patient made defamatory statements as to her surgery, was limited purpose public figure with respect to his "surgical practice"; rejecting surgeon's argument that relevant controversy was limited to particular patient's treatment

    It would also render meaningless any defense of truth or privilege.'" ( Fellows v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 234, 245 [ 228 Cal.Rptr. 215, 721 P.2d 97], quoting Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677, 682 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 145].) Sykes maintains, however, that his claims for infliction of emotional distress and interference with economic advantage must be allowed to proceed because they are not based on the allegedly defamatory communications, but on Gilbert's use of a Google Sponsored Links function, which "constitutes a discrete item of misconduct."

  10. Marich v. QRZ Media, Inc.

    73 Cal.App.4th 299 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 4 times

    The claim dies with the person. ( Miller v. National Broadcasting Co., supra, 187 Cal.App.3d at p. 1485, citing Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677, 683.) Thus, plaintiffs have no standing to assert claims which their son might have been able to assert.