Opinion ID: 1731925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: surreptitious invasion of the right to privacy

Text: Defendants argue that, if the claimed invasion of one's right to privacy is the attempted acquisition of information about a plaintiff's private matters or affairs, then it necessarily follows that such attempted acquisition must be made surreptitiously. We disagree. While conduct undertaken surreptitiously may form the basis of a different actionable claim, we find no authority for the proposition that this is an element of the wrongful intrusion tort. Indeed, no information was obtained surreptitiously in Norris, [3] nor was any information gained surreptitiously in Bennett v. Norban, 396 Pa. 94, 151 A.2d 476 (1959), cited by this Court in Norris. In Bennett, supra, the plaintiff was stopped outside defendant's store by the assistant manager of the store: He put his hand on her shoulder, put himself in position to block her path, and ordered her to take off her coat, which, being frightened, she did. He then said: `What about your pockets?' and reached into two pockets on the sides of her dress. Not finding anything, he took her purse from her hand, pulled her things out of it, peered into it, replaced the things, gave it back to her, mumbled something, and ran back into the store. 151 A.2d at 477. Although no surreptitious conduct was involved, and no information of the plaintiff's private activities was obtained, the Court held that the plaintiff did have an invasion of privacy action. The angry performance of defendant's agent was an unreasonable and serious interference with appellant's desire for anonymity and an intrusion beyond the limits of decency. 151 A.2d at 479. We find untenable Defendants' position that, because Smalley's actions occurred out in the open, Plaintiff's cause of action should be barred. We decline to hold that surreptitious or clandestine activities are necessary elements of § 652B liability, and respond to this certified question in the negative.