Dieu v. Phil McGraw (California)
(Participants recruited to participate in a Dr. Phil reality show sue for negligence and intentional tort claims; waiver and release agreements signed by the participants do not preclude liability for the claims beyond negligence.)
After posting comments on Dr. Phil’s website about their distrust for men, the plaintiffs were recruited by producers to participate in a reality-based television show where they would live in a house and receive therapy from Dr. Phil. Prior to their participation in the show, the plaintiffs signed several copies of “Dr. Phil Program Appearance Release” forms, all of which were substantially the same (the “Releases”). In addition to describing the nature of the show (including “heated discussions, commentary and remarks”), the Releases also provided that the plaintiffs agreed not to sue the defendants for failure to disclose the subject matter of the show or the identity of guests, or as a result of dislike of the questioning or outcome from the program. Additionally, the Releases asserted that the plaintiffs would be not receive therapy from Dr. Phil (contrary to alleged prior representations) and that no representations had been made to (or would be relied upon by) plaintiffs. Specifically, the Releases waived and released liability of the defendants for “any claims, demands and causes of action for invasion of privacy or publicity, defamation, infliction of emotional distress and any other tort in connection therewith.”
Plaintiffs had a bad experience in connection with the program, alleging that the “mock house” was on a sound stage, was cramped (they shared one bathroom), and was in a bad neighborhood. Plaintiffs further alleged that they had their laptops and cell phones taken from them and they were not permitted access to the outside world. The plaintiff assert that they were not provided counseling, and when a plaintiff asked to leave she was convinced to stay through unfulfilled representations by the defendants. In one instance, the plaintiffs were intentionally exposed to a naked man and were apparently mocked as a result of their reactions (they were “shocked and horrified”). Despite a lack of cooperation, the plaintiff indicated that there were eventually allowed to leave the house. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a civil action against the defendants alleging various emotional and physical injuries from the experience, asserting claims for (1) fraud, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) negligence, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) violations of the Business and Professions Code, (6) rescission, (7 intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress.
(more…)
