In the case of Yakubowicz v Paramount Pictures Corp., Yakubowicz, the defendant in the case, was on his way home on the night of February 15, 1979 when he was stabbed by Michael Barret who had been at the Saxon theatre watching two consecutive screenings of “The Warriors”. The movie in question contained several scenes of juvenile-gang related violence. Additionally, Barret smuggled alcoholic beverages into the theatre where he got intoxicated. While they were parting at the subway, Barret stubbed Yakubowicz with a knife at the chest. Consequently, he died the following morning. His father brought a tortuous action against Saxon and Paramount Corporation for wrongful death. The defendants, filed for dismissal by a summary judgment which was granted by the trial court and affirmed by the Supreme Court. However, the reasoning of the two courts differed.
The trial court premised its decision on the absence of a “special relationship” between the plaintiff and the defendants. Accordingly, the defendants owed no reasonable duty of care to the plaintiff’s decedent. As a result, it granted the summary judgment.
On the contrary, the Supreme Court found that the defendants owed a reasonable duty of care to members of the public irrespective of whether or not they were theatre patrons. However, it concluded that the defendants had not violated their duty. The motion picture in question falls under the category expressions protected by the First and the Fourteenth Amendment. The intervening causes, including time and space, negated the existence of a causal relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s death. As a result, the defendants’ conduct did not constitute the exceptions enshrined in the First Amendment.
Applying the reasoning of the trial court to the facts of the prompt is likely to lead to an imposition of tortuous liability on the proprietors of both the theatre and the graphically violent film. Contrary to the facts in the Yakubowicz v. Paramount Pictures Corp case, the facts in the prompt point to the existence of a “special relationship” between the decedent and the defendant. Hence, a reasonable duty of care attaches. In the prompt, both the decedent and the perpetrator were theatre patrons. Besides, the shooting took place “directly outside the theatre” following the immediate viewing of the “graphically violent film”. Therefore, a finding of tortuous liability is likely due to the existence of elements such as the special relationship, a reasonable duty of care and proximity.
On the contrary, application of the Supreme Court’s reasoning suggests a finding of no tortuous liability. The defendants may successfully claim that they were exercising their constitutional right to free speech as guaranteed under the First Amendment. The protection under the First Amendment is not limited by criminal and civil sanctions. Therefore, a finding of tortuous liability on the part of the defendants is unlikely.
In conclusion, the different reasoning adopted by the trial court and the Supreme Court would yield different conclusion in the case. The trial court’s reasoning would lead to a finding of tortuous liability. On the other hand, the Supreme Court’s reasoning would result in a finding of no tortuous liability on the part of the defendants.
Works Cited
Berman, Stephanie J. "View at your Own Risk: Gang Movies and Spectator Violence." Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review (1992): 477-507. Web.
Kimmel, Lisa. "Media Violence: Different Times Call for Different Measures." University of Miami Business Law Review (2002): 687-714. Print.
