Rediscovering Traditional Tort Typologies to Determine Media Liability for Physical Injuries: From the Mickey Mouse Club To Hustler Magazine

Confusion exists in the courts over when to impose liability on media defendants for physical injuries. While media defendants are regularly subjected to claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, and sometimes intentional infliction of emotional distress, claims of liability for physical injuries caused by media publication have most often been rejected over concern about infringing on first amendment protection. The authors argue that courts have inappropriately denied liability by failing to differentiate among kinds of media liability cases and by failing to analyze them as they would similar tort cases. The proper differentiation of these cases would insure against diminution of first amendment rights, minimize unreasonable risks of physical injuries, and provide just compensation for culpably caused injuries.