Rite Aid Corp. v. Hagley

Dexter Hagley (defendant) brought film to his local Rite Aid (plaintiff) to be developed. Four of the photographs depicted Hagley in the bathtub with his eight-year-old son, Kerwyn Hagley. In the photographs, Hagley was wearing shorts, Kerwyn was naked, and both were laughing. The Rite Aid store manager, Robert Rosiak (plaintiff), refused to give Hagley the developed photographs because he believed the photographs depicted child pornography. Rosiak contacted his supervisor, who advised him to contact the police. Rosiak also showed the photographs to mall security officers to get their opinion on the images. Following Rosiak’s report, police took Hagley in for questioning and child protective services (CPS) placed Kerwyn in foster care. After an investigation, the police determined that criminal charges were not warranted. Hagley sued Rite Aid and Rosiak on a variety of claims related to Rosiak’s report, including defamation, invasion of privacy, and negligence. Rite Aid and Rosiak moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to immunity under Maryland’s mandated-reporter statute. Hagley countered, arguing that Rosiak and Rite Aid were not entitled to immunity because Rosiak’s report was filed in bad faith. Hagley argued that Rosiak acted in bad faith because he behaved negligently and because he showed the photographs to mall security officers. The trial court granted Rosiak and Rite Aid summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed on most counts but reversed as to the counts related to breach of privacy and defamation, holding that those counts were not subject to immunity. Rosiak, Rite Aid, and Hagley all appealed.