Davis Adv. Sh. No. 8
S.E. 2d
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
John Doe, Respondent,
v.
Berkeley Publishers,
d/b/a The Berkeley
Independent, Petitioner.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS
Appeal From Berkeley County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Judge
Opinion No. 24765
Heard November 6, 1997 - Filed February 23, 1998
REVERSED
- Jay Bender and Charles E. Baker, both of Baker,
- Barwick, Ravenel & Bender, L.L.P., of Columbia,
- for petitioner.
- Thomas R. Goldstein, of Belk, Cobb, Infinger &
- Goldstein, P.A., of Charleston, for respondent.
FINNEY, C.J.: We granted certiorari to review that part of
the Court of Appeals' opinion which reversed the trial court's order
directing a verdict for petitioner on respondent's invasion of privacy claim.
Doe v. Berkeley Publishers, d/b/a The Berkeley Independent, 322 S.C. 307,
p. 7
DOE v. BERKELEY PUBLISHERS
471 S.E.2d 731 (Ct. App. 1996). We reverse the decision of the Court of
Appeals.
Respondent's claim is based on the petitioner's truthful
reporting that respondent was the victim of a sexual assault by an inmate
while both were incarcerated at the Berkeley County jail.1 The issue in an
invasion of privacy claim is whether the occurrence is a matter of
legitimate public or general interest. Meetze v. The Associated Press, 230
S.C. 330, 95 S.E.2d 606 (1956). While ordinarily the issue whether an
occurrence meets this test is a question of fact for the jury, under some
circumstances it may be a question of law for the court. Compare
Hawkins v. Multi-Media, 288 S.C. 569, 344 S.E.2d 145 (1986)(whether
birth of an out-of-wedlock child was a matter of legitimate public or
general interest was a jury question) with Meetze, supra (birth of child to
twelve year old mother one year after her marriage was a matter of public
interest as a matter of law). We hold that the commission of a violent
crime between inmates of a county jail is a matter of public significance as
a matter of law.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge, holding that
"whether publishing Doe's name as the victim of sexual assault was a
matter of public significance" was an issue for the jury. Doe, 322 S.C. at
314, 471 S.E.2d at 735. We disagree. The Court of Appeals erred in
separating the plaintiff's identity from the event. Under state law, if a
person, whether willingly or not, becomes an actor in an event of public or
general interest, "then the publication of his connection with such an
occurrence is not an invasion of his right to privacy." Meetze, 230 S.C. at
337, 95 S.E.2d at 609. Accordingly, Doe's invasion of privacy claim fails as
a matter of law, and the trial court's directed verdict was proper. The
decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore
REVERSED.
TOAL, A.J., MOORE, WALLER and BURNETT, JJ., concur.
1A fuller description of the facts can be found in the Court of
Appeals' opinion.
p. 8