Court Opinion

ID: 9631456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:39:01.958657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:22.390001
License: Public Domain

Judge PLANK
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent as to that portion of the majority opinion determining that there was no reversible error occasioned by the jury instructions on the invasion of privacy claim.
I concur with the majority that we should recognize the tort of invasion of privacy in the form of “unreasonable publicity given to the life of another.” However, I believe the instructions submitted to the jury were erroneous and require reversal of the judgment as to that claim for relief.
Here, the trial court modified the language of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (1976). That Restatement section provides: “One who gives publicity.But, the trial court did not use or define publicity; instead, it drafted an instruction using “published” as an element. This application of the Restatement was improper. “Publicity” requires a broader dissemination than mere “publication.”
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment on this claim and remand the cause for a new trial with properly drafted instructions.