Caseflicks

Washington Supreme Court • 1998

Reid v. Pierce County

961 P.2d 333

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, families may pursue their own privacy claims over egregious displays of a relative’s autopsy photographs, even though their absence from the displays defeats their outrage and negligent-infliction claims.

Background

Families of several deceased people sued Pierce County after learning that medical examiner’s office employees had kept autopsy photographs for personal use and shown them to others, including coworkers, friends, and people attending a road-safety class. The families had not authorized those displays. Karen Reid, the niece of former Governor Dixie Lee Ray, pursued a claim assigned to her by Ray’s sister.

The trial court dismissed the families’ claims for invasion of privacy, outrage, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violation of constitutional privacy rights, either for failure to state a claim or on summary judgment. The Washington Supreme Court consolidated the cases for review.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether relatives may bring their own common-law invasion-of-privacy claims when county employees display autopsy photographs of deceased family members.

Holding

Yes. Washington recognizes a common-law invasion-of-privacy claim, and immediate relatives have a protectable privacy interest in a decedent’s autopsy records. The families alleged enough to proceed on that claim.

Reasoning

Washington follows the Restatement’s rule against publicizing private facts in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person when the facts are not of legitimate public concern. The Court made explicit that this common-law cause of action exists in Washington and overruled a contrary implication in a Court of Appeals decision.

The families were asserting an interest of their own, not merely trying to inherit the deceased persons’ privacy rights. The Court reasoned that exposing autopsy images can affront a family’s privacy and the dignity of its deceased relative, much as physical mistreatment of a body can.

State law makes autopsy records confidential and permits access only to specified people, including family members. The County’s own instruction against keeping photographs for personal collections reinforced that the images were not meant for casual display.

The alleged displays were sufficiently egregious to allow the families’ claims to go forward; the Court did not decide that every element had been proved. Because a common-law remedy was available, it declined to create a damages action under the Washington Constitution or decide whether its privacy provision affords greater protection than the federal Constitution.

Issue #2

Whether relatives who were absent when employees misused the photographs may recover for outrage or negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Holding

No. Their absence when the conduct occurred barred both claims under the rules the Court applied.

Reasoning

An outrage claim arising from conduct involving another person requires the plaintiff to be an immediate family member who was present when the conduct occurred. The families learned of the displays afterward. Although the Court acknowledged that the conduct could reasonably be called outrageous, it declined to dispense with the presence requirement.

For negligent infliction of emotional distress, Washington law treats a relative’s mental suffering as unforeseeable as a matter of law when the relative was not present at the injury-causing event. Because none of the plaintiffs witnessed the employees’ conduct, those claims also failed.