Opinion ID: 1731925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: communication to third parties about plaintiff's private activities

Text: Although Defendants vigorously insist to the contrary, we cannot agree that 652B's application must be triggered by some communication or publication by a defendant to a third party of any private information elicited from a plaintiff. Comment (a) of § 652B, in pertinent part, states, The form of invasion of privacy covered by this Section does not depend upon any publicity given to the person whose interest is invaded or to his affairs. Comment (b) goes on to say: The intrusion itself makes the defendant subject to liability, even though there is no publication.... See Illustration 1-5 for factual contexts in which liability may be found absent any element of publicity or disclosure to third parties. In Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt, 365 A.2d 792 (Me.1976), a cause of action for invasion of privacy was held stated where the defendant, a physician, had photographed a dying man in his hospital bed, over his objections. The appellate court dismissed as erroneous a trial court's determination that publication was necessary for liability, and, quoting an older case, discussed the difference between libel and invasion of privacy. The author of a libel is the creator and there can be no offense until the contents are communicated to another. One cannot invade the rights of another merely by expressing his thoughts on paper. Two persons are necessary. One's right of privacy, however, may be invaded by a single human agency. (Emphasis added.) Holding, as we do, that publication or communication is not a necessary element upon which to predicate § 652B liability, we respond to this question in the negative.