Opinion ID: 2383369
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: invasion of privacy claim

Text: For her final point plaintiff contends the trial court erred in sustaining GFC's motion for summary judgment on Counts V and VI of her First Amended Petition. Plaintiff asserts her claim against GFC is one for invasion of her right to privacy, i.e. the right to be left alone. Relying on Zimmerman v. Associates Discount Corp., 444 S.W.2d 396 (Mo. banc 1969), and Biederman's of Springfield, Inc. v. Wright, 322 S.W.2d 892 (Mo.1959), GFC maintains that plaintiff failed to state a claim for invasion of privacy because the element of publicity is lacking; from plaintiff's own deposition testimony, it was established that GFC's communication with plaintiff consisted solely of telephone conversations with plaintiff alone. An individual's right of privacy is legally protected, and violation of such right can under given circumstances provide an entitlement to relief. Biederman's of Springfield, Inc. v. Wright, 322 S.W.2d at 895. As has been noted, however, invasion of privacy is a general term used to describe four different torts, each with distinct elements and each describing a separate interest that can be invaded, although the separate interests may, and often do, overlap. See Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts, § 117 (4th Edition 1971); Corcoran v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 572 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Mo.App. 1978). The Restatement of Torts (Second) § 652A (1977) declares that the right of privacy is invaded when there is (1) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another; or (2) appropriation of the other's name or likeness; or (3) unreasonable publicity given to the other's private life; or (4) publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public. We need not enumerate the elements of each type of invasion of privacy, for plaintiff in her claim against GFC pleaded only an unreasonable intrusion upon her seclusion, one of the identifiable forms of the tort. We believe Corcoran v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 572 S.W.2d 212, 215 (Mo.App. 1978), is correct in its holding that publicity is not required to establish a tort on this theory. In accord, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B comment a (1977). This reflects the modern view, and the factual difference arguably distinguishes this claim from the form of the tort involved in Biederman's of Springfield, Inc. v. Wright, 322 S.W.2d 892 (Mo.1959). To the extent Zimmerman v. Associates Discount Corp., 444 S.W.2d 396 (Mo. banc 1969), is construed as ruling that publicity is an essential element of tortious intrusion upon seclusion, it is not to be followed. The claim asserted by plaintiff is defined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B: One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. In support of its motion for summary judgment, GFC offered plaintiff's petition and deposition testimony. Neither party offered affidavits in support of or in opposition to the motion. The facts alleged in Counts V and VI of plaintiff's First Amended Petition against GFC for invasion of privacy were substantially those contained in Count III of her Third Amended Petition, discussed supra, against defendant Thal for nuisance, and we need not restate them here. On deposition, plaintiff testified that over a period of at least several months, she received a total of six or eight telephone calls from agents of GFC. The last call was received in February, 1977, but between November 1976 and February 1977, calls were infrequent. After plaintiff told the first caller she worked at night and that future calls should be made in the morning, she received three to five more afternoon calls. Each call awakened plaintiff and caused her to lose between two and three hours sleep. All of the calls were made to plaintiff's home and received between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Plaintiff lived alone and was the only person to answer the calls. The callers were more or less polite, and none raised his voice, screamed at plaintiff or threatened to sue her. None called her at work or threatened to tell her neighbors she was a deadbeat if she didn't pay. Although plaintiff's petition alleged she was abused, embarrassed and intimidated by the calls, she denied in deposition that she was embarrassed, and claimed she felt abused solely because she was unnecessarily roused from bed when sleeping. Plaintiff also testified to feeling intimidated by calls insisting she pay a bill she didn't feel she should. Although the petition alleged GFC's calls caused plaintiff to be less efficient at work, she testified no one at the post office told her she was less efficient, and she never lost a day of work because of the calls. While plaintiff claims to have noticed a reduction in her ability to perform work on the night following an afternoon telephone call from GFC, her work did not fall below minimum standards set for her at her place of work. Even if we were to opine that telephone calls could constitute an actionable intrusion under plaintiff's theory, we believe that summary judgment was appropriate here. Comment d to § 650B of the Restatement (Second) of Torts contains the following pertinent observation: d. There is ... no liability unless the interference with the plaintiff's seclusion is a substantial one, of a kind that would be highly offensive to the ordinary reasonable man, as the result of conduct to which there is no liability for knocking at the plaintiff's door; or calling him on the telephone on one occasion or even two or three, to demand payment of a debt. It is only when the telephone calls are repeated with such persistence and frequency as to amount to a course of hounding the plaintiff, that becomes a substantial burden to his existence, that his privacy is invaded. While ordinarily a question for the jury, we cannot find the six to eight polite telephone calls made by GFC to plaintiff over a period of several months amount to the type of intrusion that could be found highly offensive to the ordinary person or to constitute hounding. This is not a trespass action in which damages are presumed, and it is appropriate to hold the plaintiff to some claim of substantial damages. Bass v. Nooney Co., 646 S.W.2d 765 (Mo. banc 1983), provides something of an analogy in the requirement that damages in a non-impact negligence case be medically significant. The trial court did not err in entering summary judgment for defendant GFC on Count V of plaintiff's First Amended Petition, or Count VI, the corresponding claim for punitive damages. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court for summary judgment as to Counts V and VI for plaintiff's First Amended Petition and the order of dismissal as to Counts III and VI of her Third Amended Petition is affirmed. The judgment of the trial court dismissing Counts I, II, IV and V of her Third Amended Petition is reversed, and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. HIGGINS, GUNN, BLACKMAR and DONNELLY, JJ., and MORGAN, Senior Judge, concur. WELLIVER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part in separate opinion filed. BILLINGS, J., not sitting. WELLIVER, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the opinion of the Court except insofar as it holds plaintiff's third amended petition sufficient to state a cause of action for fraud. Had plaintiff paid for all four pieces of the bedroom set with the understanding that defendant Thal would deliver them forthwith, I could agree with the conclusion reached by the majority. A fair reading of plaintiff's petition reveals, however, that she bargained for something else. Plaintiff alleges she paid $369 and accepted defendant's tendered delivery of three pieces of the set. She further alleges that she agreed to pay a balance of $142.99... following the delivery of the solid wood headboard. Withholding payment for the headboard clearly indicates that plaintiff placed no reliance on Thal's representations. At most, plaintiff has a cause of action for breach of the contract to deliver the headboard at some future time.