Decision of Note: <b>Talk Show Not Liable For Assault</b>

The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, held that a television talk show didn't owe a duty to a minor who claimed that she was sexually assaulted when she had traveled to New York to appear on a segment of the program. Craver v. Povich, 3331.

Finding no negligence by “The Maury Povich Show,” the appellate court noted in dismissing the complaint, “plaintiff concedes not only that she was no longer in defendants' custody at the time of the alleged assault [by an individual who claimed he was 'Maury's Limo Driver'], the taping having ended hours earlier, but that her mother and her legal guardian had resumed control over her and were supervising her, in their hotel room, at the time the driver initially made his attempt to contact plaintiff, and when plaintiff later absconded from her guardians. … Yet, plaintiff argues that defendants, who were not in the hotel room and, in fact, had no discernible right to be there, had the duty to prevent her from 'sneaking' away with an unidentified third party. … The expanded orbit of duty urged by plaintiff would have required defendants to not only return her safely to her guardians, but to then continue to monitor the adequacy of the supervision provided by her guardians and, perhaps, to provide round-the-clock surveillance.”

The appellate court also dismissed claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring and retention.

The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, held that a television talk show didn't owe a duty to a minor who claimed that she was sexually assaulted when she had traveled to New York to appear on a segment of the program. Craver v. Povich, 3331.

Finding no negligence by “The Maury Povich Show,” the appellate court noted in dismissing the complaint, “plaintiff concedes not only that she was no longer in defendants' custody at the time of the alleged assault [by an individual who claimed he was 'Maury's Limo Driver'], the taping having ended hours earlier, but that her mother and her legal guardian had resumed control over her and were supervising her, in their hotel room, at the time the driver initially made his attempt to contact plaintiff, and when plaintiff later absconded from her guardians. … Yet, plaintiff argues that defendants, who were not in the hotel room and, in fact, had no discernible right to be there, had the duty to prevent her from 'sneaking' away with an unidentified third party. … The expanded orbit of duty urged by plaintiff would have required defendants to not only return her safely to her guardians, but to then continue to monitor the adequacy of the supervision provided by her guardians and, perhaps, to provide round-the-clock surveillance.”

The appellate court also dismissed claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring and retention.