Opinion ID: 2356237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Mrs Nelson's Cause of Action

Text: Mrs. Nelson, although citing no supportive authority, seems to assume that the defendant's unauthorized publication of her son's photograph gave her a cause of action. We do not agree. Restatement (Second), Torts § 652I, places limitations on actions for violating the right to privacy, namely: Except for the appropriation of one's name or likeness, an action for invasion of privacy can be maintained only by a living individual whose privacy is invaded. [4] Section 652I is in accord with general decisional law which holds this tort to be purely personal. In the context of this particular tort courts, being wary of spurious claims or those purely emotional in character, have refused to recognize such actions. Additionally, if actions for violating the right of privacy were allowed by other than the person directly involved, fixing their boundaries and parameters would become an almost impossible task. For example, within what degree of relationship, if any, must a prospective plaintiff be? Might not a very close friend have as serious an emotional reaction as a mother or father? The consensus seems to be that limiting the action to the person directly involved is a sounder judicial policy. We agree. See Cordell v. Detective Publications, Inc., 419 F.2d 989 (6th Cir. 1969); Kelley v. Post Publishing Co., 327 Mass. 275, 98 N.E.2d 286, 287 (1951). Since Mrs. Nelson's personal privacy was not invaded by the unauthorized publication of her son's photograph, she has no cognizable cause of action against the Maine Times. The entry is: Appeals denied.