Privacy Torts and young Master Doe

This week’s assignment poses two challenges for new law students: figuring out which privacy tort is which and figuring out how to compare and contrast facts from cases with different resolution statuses. First, note that an invasion of privacy under the common law can take the form of any of four different causes of action: (1) intrusion (or invasion) upon seclusion; (2) appropriation; (3) tortious publication of private facts; and (4) false light. The Minnesota Supreme Court provides the elements of all four torts in Lake, but note that we are interested only in the elements (and application) of “publication of private facts.” Discussing the elements of the other privacy torts will not help you here.

The bigger challenge is figuring out how to compare and contrast facts from these cases with those in your client’s situation. Let’s look briefly at each:

Hendry: Interestingly, the court affirms the lower court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claim by determining that the plaintiff did not plead facts sufficient to satisfy the elements of the tort… after the court said the tort does not exist in Minnesota! (How you determine that a plaintiff has not satisfied the elements of a non-existent tort, I don’t know.) Should you read the analysis of the facts as dictum? (One court in our case materials says just the opposite – why?) Is the analysis of the facts in Hendry useful in the Doe situation?

Stubbs: Here, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant. As it finds there is no Minnesota cause of action for tortious publication of private facts, it does not articulate the elements of toritous publication, nor does it attempt to analyze the facts in its case against any rule for tortious publication. Will it be useful to compare/contrast the Doe facts with the Stubbs facts?

Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores: Here the Supreme Court reverses a grant of summary judgment, holding that Minnesota now has a cause of action for tortious publication. But does it actually determine whether any of the facts in the case satisfy the rule for tortious publication. (The answer is on page 9 of the case materials.)

CLD v. Wall-Mart Stores: (Did you wonder what is the correct spelling for “Wal Mart”?) This is a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant. This opinion actually disposes of a case by applying our rule to some facts. You will probably want to compare/contrast facts from this case to the Doe facts. But is this opinion binding on your client?

Bodah: Finally, the state Supreme Court is at it again; the opinion’s first paragraph gives two important clues to the utility of the case: (a) the adoption of the Restatement standard; and (b) an examination of the “publicity” element. It finds that the plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to state a claim for tortious interference. It seems that comparing/contrasting facts from this case with the Doe case might be a good idea.