This is a problem solution of Mark Chanko v ABC,

please and include the following;

Judgment:

Issue :

Holding:

General analysis:

Applied Analysis:

3. Mark Chanko was brought into the emergency room of New York and Presbyterian Hospital (the Hospi- tal). He had been hit by a vehicle but was alert and responding to questions. Dr. Sebastian Schubl was the Hospital's chief surgical resident and was re- sponsible for Chanko's treatment. While Chanko was being treated, employees of ABC News, a division of American Broadcasting Companies Inc. (ABC), were in the Hospital. With the Hospital's knowledge and permission, the ABC employees were filming a documentary series (NY Med) about medical trauma and the professionals who attend to the patients suf- fering from such trauma. No one informed Chanko, his wife (who was at the Hospital), or members of his family (who were also there) that a camera crew was present and filming. Nor was their consent obtained for filming or for the crew's presence. Less than an hour after Chanko arrived at the Hospital, Dr. Schubl declared him dead. That declaration was filmed by ABC. Chanko's prior treatment was apparently filmed as well. Dr. Schubl then informed the family of Chanko's death. That moment was also recorded without their knowledge. Sixteen months later, Chanko's widow, Anita Chanko, watched an episode of NY Med on her televi- sion at home. She recognized the scene, heard her late husband's voice as he asked about her, saw him pic- tured on a stretcher, heard him moaning, and watched the video depiction of him as he died. In addition, she saw, and relived, the scene in which Dr. Schubl in- formed the family of his death. She then told the otherfamily members, who also watched the episode. This was the first time she and the family members became aware that decedent's medical treatment and death had been recorded. Anita Chanko and other family members later filed a lawsuit against ABC, the Hos- pital, and Dr. Schubl. They brought various claims, including one for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The defendants moved to dismiss the IIED claim. How did the court rule