Opinion ID: 1731925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the requirement of acquiring information about plaintiff's private activities

Text: The Court of Appeals' second query is as follows: [M]ust information about the plaintiff's `private activities' actually be acquired through the intrusion before the cause of action is established? Defendants argue that because Plaintiff declined Defendant's invitation and did not answer his inquiries, so no information about Plaintiff's sexual experiences, practices, or inclinations was acquired or disclosed, nothing was acquired by Defendant about Plaintiff so as to justify allegations of wrongful intrusion. We disagree. Illustration 5 to § 652B finds liability for wrongful intrusion or intrusion upon seclusion where a photographer makes numerous calls to a person at all times of the day and night, insisting that he be allowed to photograph her. The photographer ignores the lady's pleas that he desist. See, also, Housh v. Peth, 99 Ohio App. 485, 135 N.E.2d 440 (1955); Barnett v. Collection Service Co., 214 Iowa 1303, 242 N.W. 25 (1932); and La Salle Extension University v. Fogarty, 126 Neb. 457, 253 N.W. 424 (1934), all of which find liability for invasion of privacy or intrusion upon seclusion without any requirement that information be acquired. We hold that acquisition of information from a plaintiff is not a requisite element of a § 652B cause of action.