Invasion of Privacy Torts: 1. Intrusion into seclusion 1. Intentional a. Invasion physically or otherwise b. Into solitude of private affairs 2.

Objectively measure: a. Intrusion must be highly offensive 2. Appropriation of identity 1. Unauthorized used of name or likeness 2. For Ds use of benefit (must of meant to exploit) *Interests: Liberty + Dignitary o = Privacy Deterrence of antisocial/intrusive/exploitive conduct 3. Publication of private facts 1. Publicized (you dont publicize without some intent) 2. Private 3. Unreasonable or highly offensive to disclose 4. Objective standard 4. False light publicity 1. Publicity 2. Depiction of identity in a highly offensive light 3. D had knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard a. State of mind 4. FALSITY 5. Objective standard Defenses: 1. Newsworthiness 2. Freedom of expression/press 3. Truth Right of publicity/trademark In all of these torts (invasion of privacy, IIED) recovery is for something intangible Personal dignity and self respect (?), name and likeness, sentimental associations Ambiguity ! Pic of couple leaving planned parenthood -Planned Parenthood uses pic of couple without permission for an advertisement right of publicity goes to endorsement

Pg. 222 Section D: Invasion of Privacy [dignitary harm] Tort law of privacy consists of 4 torts: 1. Wrongfully intruding into the private life of another person 2. Unjustifiably appropriating or exploiting anothers personality for gain 3. Publicizing the private affairs of another to persons who have no legitimate interest in knowing about those affairs 4. Publicizing private facts about another that unreasonably places another in false light before the public Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. SC Minnesota 1998 Facts: Elli Lake and Melissa Weber vacations in Mexico in March 1995, during which Webers sister took a naked picture of the two in the shower together. After the vacation Weber and Lake brought the rolls of film to a Wal-Mart photo to be developed. When they received the photographs and negatives, there was a notice informing them that one or more of the photographs were not printed because of their nature By Feb. 1996, Lake was informed that one or more copies of the photograph were circulating in the community. Lake filed a complaint against Wal-Mart alleging 4 traditional invasion of privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, publication of private facts and false light publicity

Procedural History: District ct. and ct. of appeals held that Lake and Webers complaint alleging intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation, publication of private facts and false light publicity could not proceed cause Minnesota did not have a common law tort for invasion of privacy. Issue: Should Minnesota recognize any or all of the invasion of privacy causes of action? Holding/Reasoning: Intrusion upon seclusion: occurs when one intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns (intrusion must be highly offensive to a reasonable person) Appropriation protects and individuals identity and is committed when one appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another Publication of private facts is an invasion of privacy when one gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another (matter publicized has to be highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate concern to the public) False light publicity occurs when one gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light (highly offensive to a reasonable person and the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard to the falsity of the publicized matter) Right to life = right to enjoy life, the right to be let alone Right to privacy has its foundation in the instincts of nature and is therefore immutable and absolute right derived from natural law Right to privacy = protections of individual property and contract rights and the right to be let alone is recognized as part of the common law across this country The heart of our liberty is choosing which parts of our lives shall become public and which parts shall hold close

o Disposition: Reversed. (decline to recognize the false light publicity at this time bc these are claims similar to defamation) Dissent: As much as we deplore such conduct, not every contemptible act in our society is actionable. SQUIBS Rush v. Maine Savings Bank Bank complied w/ IRS summons seeking information about a mortgage loan agreement, the original amount, the balance, and any delinquency Plaintiffs brought action against bank alleging invasion of privacy bc bank violted its duty of confidentiality Plaintiffs complaint did not allege any of the four tortious kinds of invasion of privacy Froelich v.Werbin Woman accused former husband of being homosexual and claiming Plaintiff as his lover. o To prove this she got her friend the deputy sheriff to pay an orderly to get a sample of hair from plaintiff while he was hospitalized to compare it to a hair she found on her exhusbands bed o Hair taken from a piece of used adhesive tape Since there had been no intrusion into the secluded hospital room and since plaintiff did not even know that the hair had been obtained until several months after it happened, this was not the kind of highly offensive intrusion that would be actionable. Shulman v. Group W Productions Mother and son had to be cut from the car by the jaws of life after a sever car accident o Video camera operator of D roamed accident scene videotaping rescue and accompanied victims to the hospital in the helicopter o Taped them until they were inside hospital and broadcasted scenes in a new segment Plaintiffs sued for invasion of privacy unlawful intrusion, public disclosure of private facts Trial judge granted Ds motion for summary judgment bc the events depicted in the broadcast were newsworthy and the producers activities were protected under the First amendment Disclosure of private Facts: The material broadcast was newsworthy as a matter of law and therefore cannot be the basis for tort liability Unlawful Intrusion: Ds had no constitutional privileges so as to intrude on Ps seclusion and private communications (helicopter) Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co. 1974 FACTS: In 1967, Margaret Cantrells husband, Melvin, died in the Silver Bridge collapse in Point Pleasant, W. Va. Plain Dealer magazine, of Forest City Publishing, assigned reporter Eszterhas to cover the bridge collapse. Eszterhas wrote a news feature story that focused on Melvins funeral and the impact of his death on his wife and four minor children. Eszterhas and photographer, Conway, returned to the Cantrell home to write a follow-up story. Margaret was not there at the time. Eszterhas conversed with the children while Conway took photographs. The follow-up story was featured in Plain Dealers Sunday magazine on August 4, 1968. This article stressed the Cantrells poor living conditions by focus on the childrens old, ill-fitting clothes and the poor condition of their home.

Ones naked body is a very private part of ones person and generally known by others only by choice It is a public interest worthy of protection

The story contained many falsehoods and inaccuracies. Although Margaret was not present during the follow-up, Eszterhas wrote, Margaret Cantrell will talk neither about what happened nor about how they are doing. She wears the same mask of non-expression she wore at the funeral. There were several other misrepresentations of the family and their living conditions. The Cantrells filed suit against Forest Publishing Company under the invasion of privacy.

Procedural History: District Judge struck claims relating to punitive damages and dismissed the actions of 3 Cantrell children in their entirety but allowed the case to go to the jury as to Mrs. Cantrell and her oldest son. Jury rendered judgment against defendants and awarded the Cantrells compensatory damages. st th Ct. of appeals reversed; In light of the 1 and 14 amendments, the district judge should have granted the defendants motion for a directed verdict as to all the Cantrells. SC granted certiorari Holding/reasoning: New York Times v. Sullivan o Constitutional limits on a States power to award damages for libel in actions brought by public officials o Constitutional protections for speech and press precluded the application of the NY statute to allow recovery for false reports of matters of public interest in the absence of proof that the defendant published the report with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of truth calculated falsehoods Writing of feature was within scope of Esterhas employment, therefore liable under respondeat superior REVERSED REMANDED SQUIBS Vogel v. W. T. Grant Co. rd rd Ps had credit accounts w/ D which contacted 3 parties and discussed Ps debts w/ these 3 parties in order to harass Ps into paying debts Ps alleged that Ds violated their privacy by contacting them rd Trial Ct. agreed and enjoined D from contacting 3 parties except to located a debtor who has concealed his whereabouts Higher Ct. ruled that Ds conduct does not rise to level of an invasion of privacy Section 652D Privacy Given to Private Life: One who gives publicity to matters concerning the private life of another, of a kind highly offensive to a reasonable man, subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy. Brents 3 part test in determining whether the right to privacy had been violated: o Publicity which is unreasonable must be given to a private fact Ct. concludes that there was no such publicity (only 4 persons) small group does not in this case constitute publication IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES notification of 2 or 4 third parties is not sufficient to constitute publication Norris v. Moskin Stores Inc. ....suggesting P had been having illicit affairs w herattempt to coerce payment of debt Jury could find activities beyond the realm of reasonable action from oral communications as well as written communication