Actual events that took place on September 11 and 12 in 1952, wherein the five members of the Hill family were held hostage for 19 hours, inspired the 1954 Joseph Hayes novel which, in turn, inspired the 1955 play on which the movie was based. The Hill family (formerly of
Whitemarsh Township, Pennsylvania) sued
Time, Inc., because
Life magazine published an article in the February 1955 issue about the play, describing it as based on the actual events. The article was illustrated by staged photos with actors in the actual home that was the scene of the events, the Hills having moved away, making efforts to discourage publicity. The Hills' complaint was that the article falsely described the actual events while claiming it represented the truth. Immediately following the
home invasion event, Mr. Hill had told the press the family had not been molested or harmed, and in fact had been treated courteously. The
Life article, however, stated that some family members had been assaulted, profanity used, and in other ways – according to a New York appellate court – differed from the account Hill had given. Suing in a New York court, the plaintiffs relied on a New York statute which permitted damages suits for violation of the right of privacy only in instances of use of a person's name or picture for commercial purposes without consent. The statute, however, had been interpreted by the New York courts to make the truth of the publication a defense. The defense for Time, Inc., was that the matter was of general interest and the article had been published in good faith. A jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages, but the state appellate court awarded a new trial at which only compensatory damages could be considered, while sustaining liability. This order was affirmed by the highest state court. Time, Inc., appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the
First Amendment prohibited holding the publisher liable unless the article was known by it to be false, or at least was published with disregard as to its truth or falsity (i.e., recklessly). The jury had not been so instructed, so the judgment could not stand. This ruling was a significant expansion of press protection, for a (qualified) immunity from damages was being extended to publishing matter about people who were newsworthy only by accident, as opposed to, for example, government officials. To this point the relevant cases had only dealt with such so-called "public figures" who were suing publishers. Mr. Hill was represented in the High Court by
Richard M. Nixon, at that time an attorney in private practice. The Supreme Court thus made it extremely difficult even for ordinarily private persons to prevail in a defamation or "false light" invasion of privacy case. From the Supreme Court, the case was sent back in 1967, to the New York courts for disposition under this newly announced constitutional standard, probably involving a new trial, or perhaps summary judgment rendered on the basis of affidavits and depositions. ==Music==