Green v. Chicago Tribune Co.
Illinois Court of Appeals
675 N.E.2d 249 (1996)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Laura Green’s (plaintiff) son, Calvin, was transported to the hospital for a bullet wound. While he was undergoing emergency treatment, staffers from the Chicago Tribune Company (Chicago Tribune) (defendant) photographed Calvin without Green’s consent. After attempts to revive Calvin failed, medical personnel moved him to a private hospital room to await the coroner. Around that time, a Chicago Tribune reporter asked Green for a statement regarding her son’s death. Green declined. Simultaneously, Chicago Tribune staffers entered Calvin’s private room and took more photographs of him. When Green protested and demanded to enter the room, the staffers prevented her doing so. Once Green finally gained access to Calvin’s room, she spoke softly to her son. However, Chicago Tribune staffers overheard Green’s statements and published them, as well as the photographs of her deceased son in the newspaper. A subsequent article showing Green’s son undergoing emergency treatment did not feature Green in any manner. Green filed suit against the Chicago Tribune and its employees (defendants) for two counts of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The trial court dismissed Green’s complaint. Green appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Brien, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.