LaCrone v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 August 1961 |
| Citation | 182 N.E.2d 15,114 Ohio App. 299 |
| Parties | , 19 O.O.2d 236 LaCRONE, Appellant, v. OHIO BELL TELEPHONE CO., Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A petition which alleges that a telephone company 'deliberately, intentionally, willfully, unlawfully, and in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff, did place a tap on plaintiff's telephone, and * * * intercept and * * * intrude upon plaintiff's private telephone conversations, and * * * allow persons unauthorized by the plaintiff to listen to and intercept plaintiff's private telephone conversations' and that defendant 'wrongfully intruded into' plaintiff's 'private activities, and as a proximate result' thereof 'plaintiff has been embarrassed, humiliated, and has suffered both mentally and physically,' states a cause of action against the telephone company for invasion of privacy and is good against demurrer.
William J. Lohr, Columbus, for appellant.
Porter, Stanley, Treffinger & Platt and John H. Leddy, Columbus, for appellee.
The trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's amended petition and a judgment of dismissal was entered. This appeal results.
The material and pertinent allegations in the amended petition are:
'On or about May 11, 1960, the defendant deliberately, intentionally, willfully, unlawfully, and in reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff, did place a tap on plaintiff's telephone, and, by such means did intercept and did intrude upon plaintiff's private telephone conversations, and, by such means, did allow persons unauthorized by the plaintiff to listen to and intercept plaintiff's private telephone conversations.'
'Plaintiff further says that by defendant's acts, it has wrongfully intruded into her private activities, and as a proximate result of these acts of the defendant in invading her privacy, the plaintiff has been embarrassed, humiliated, and has suffered both mentally and physically * * *.'
The trial court ruled: 'We cannot see that any cause of action has been stated in the amended petition and therefore the demurrer must be sustained.'
The sole question for our decision is: Does the amended petition state facts which constitute a cause of action?
Since the telephone company is defendant here, this appears to be a case of first impression. It is now settled that in Ohio one has the right to maintain an action for invasion of privacy, See Housh v. Peth, 165 Ohio St. 35, 133 N.E.2d 340. An actionable invasion of the right of privacy is defined in the second paragraph of the syllabus:
'An actionable invasion of the right of privacy is the unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one's personality, the publicizing of one's private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one's private activities in such a manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.' (Our emphasis.)
We test the amended petition with the italicized definition.
It must be borne in mind that the demurrer admits not only what is expressly alleged, but also what can be implied as the fair and reasonable intendment of the allegations made. See National Surety Co. v. Mansfield Lumber Co., 32 Ohio App. 146. 167 N.E. 691, and Poe v. Canton Mansfield Dry Goods Co., 36 Ohio App. 395, 173 N.E. 318.
It is expressly alleged that the telephone company did 'tap' and did 'intercept' and did 'intrude' upon the plaintiff's private telephone conversations. It can be implied as a fair and reasonable intendment that such conduct or such acts were without notice to or authorization from the plaintiff. Therefore, it can be said that an original act of intrusion upon or direct invasion of plaintiff's right of privacy is claimed. 'Whenever a telephone line is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Birnbaum v. U.S.
..."opening (one's) private and personal mail . . .." 3 Restatement, Supra, § 652B, comment b, at 378-79; Cf. LaCrone v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 114 Ohio App. 299, 182 N.E.2d 15 (1961) (intrusion by Appellant United States contends, however, that New York does not recognize a common law right to p......
-
Marks v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania
...General Motors Corp., 25 N.Y.2d 560, 307 N.Y.S.2d 647, 255 N.E.2d 765 (1970) (District of Columbia law); LaCrone v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co., 114 Ohio App. 299, 182 N.E.2d 15 (1961); Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.1973); Roach v. Harper, 143 W.Va. 869, 105 S.E.2d 564 (1958); cf. P......
-
Sistok v. Northwestern Tel. Systems, Inc.
...common law tort to the field of telecommunications. Hamberger v. Eastman (1964), 106 N.H. 107, 206 A.2d 239; LaCrone v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. (1961), 114 Ohio App. 299, 182 N.E.2d 15; Rhodes v. Graham (1931), 238 Ky. 225, 37 S.W.2d 46; Billings v. Atkinson (Tex.1973), 489 S.W.2d 858. While som......
-
Fed. Mgt. Co. v. Coopers & Lybrand
...107, 547 N.E.2d 995, Kuhn v. Bader (1951), 89 Ohio App. 203, 45 O.O. 455, 101 N.E.2d 322, and LaCrone v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co. (1961), 114 Ohio App. 299, 19 O.O.2d 236, 182 N.E.2d 15, in support of their assertion that Ohio recognizes liability on the part of those who assist or encourage......