YG v. Jewish Hospital of St. Louis
Missouri Court of Appeals
795 S.W.2d 488 (1990)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
YG and LG (the couple) (plaintiffs) were pregnant with triplets that they had conceived through an internationally known in vitro fertilization program at Jewish Hospital of St. Louis (the hospital) (defendant). The hospital invited the couple to attend an event celebrating the in vitro program’s fifth anniversary. The hospital assured the couple that the event was not open to the public or the media and that only other couples who had also used in vitro fertilization would be there. However, when the couple arrived at the event, a television news crew was filming it. The couple refused to be interviewed on camera, but they did not leave the event. A later-televised newscast included the couple’s images and information about their situation, although the story did not use their names. The couple claimed that they had kept their in vitro information very private and that the newscast had caused their religious peers and coworkers to condemn and ridicule them. The couple sued the hospital and the television station for the privacy-invasion tort of public disclosure of private facts. The trial court dismissed the claim, and the couple appealed. On appeal, the parties disputed (1) whether the couple had waived their right to privacy by attending the event and (2) whether disclosure of in vitro information would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Simeone, J.)
Dissent (Gaertner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

