Gouldman-Taber Pontiac, Inc. v. Zerbst

• Decision Date: 08 November 1957
• Docket Number: GOULDMAN-TABER,No. 19819,19819
• Citation: 213 Ga. 682,100 S.E.2d 881
• Parties: PONTIAC, Inc. v. Beverly L. ZERBST.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 881

100 S.E.2d 881

213 Ga. 682

GOULDMAN-TABER PONTIAC, Inc. v. Beverly L. ZERBST.

No. 19819.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 8, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1957.

Hurt, Gaines, Baird, Peek & Peabody, W. Neal Baird, Robt. F. Lyle, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Dennis F. Jones, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Moise Post & Gardner, Allen Post, J. Wm. Gibson, Cam D. Dorsey, Jr., Dorsey & Dorsey, Atlanta, H. Sol Clark, Brannen, Clark & Hester, Savannah, for party at interest.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

MOBLEY, Justice.

This case is before this court on grant of a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals 96 Ga.App. 48, 99 S.E.2d 475, that court having affirmed the judgment of the trial court overruling general demurrers to the petition which sought damages for an alleged invasion of the plaintiff's right of privacy. The allegations of the petition are that the defendant wrote to the plaintiff's employer the following letter: 'Dear Sir: We are writing you in regards to the above named customer who is employed with Lockheed Aircraft Corp. We are always reluctant to writ the employer of our accounts, but in this instance it is done as a last resort. We have made every effort to form an amicable settlement with this customer but have had no cooperation from her. We would appreciate any assistance that you might give us in the termination of an honest debt made by Beverly L. Zerbst'; that the parties were in disagreement about a repair bill on the plaintiff's automobile, which she contended was not due because the repair work was improperly done; that her employer confronted her with the letter and advised her that it would be placed in her permanent file until such time as the employer was advised that she had settled the bill; that as a result of the aforesaid she suffered humiliation, embarrassment, mental pain and stress; and that the act of the defendant was a wilful, intentional and malicious attack upon her good name and character and constituted an invasion of her right of privacy. Held:

1. That an action will lie for a violation of the right of privacy was established in this State in Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co., 122 Ga. 190, 50 S.E. 68, 69 L.R.A. 101, which was the first recognition of this right by any court of last resort in this country. Its chief impetus to recognition as an independent right originated in an article by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis in 1890. Since the Pavesich decision the following cases in this State have followed it: Bazemore v. Savannah Hospital, 171 Ga. 257, 155 S.E. 194; McDaniel v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 60 Ga.App. 92, 2 S.E.2d 810; Davis v. General Finance & Thrift Corp., 80 Ga.App. 708, 710, 57 S.E.2d 225; Waters v. Fleetwood, 212 Ga. 161, 91 S.E.2d 344; and the right of privacy has been recognized in the following jurisdictions: Alabama, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. See Housh v. Peth, 165 Ohio St. 35, 133 N.E.2d 340.

2. In the Pavesich case it was said: 'The right of privacy is embraced within the absolute rights of personal security and personal liberty. Personal security includes the right to exist, and the right to the enjoyment of life while existing, and is invaded not only by a deprivation of life, but also by a deprivation of those things which are necessary to the enjoyment of life according to the nature, temperament, and lawful desires of the individual. Personal liberty includes not only freedom from physical restraint, but also the right 'to be let alone': to determine one's mode of life, whether it shall be a life of publicity or of privacy; and to order one's life and manage one's affairs in a manner that may be most agreeable to him so long as he does not violate the rights of others or of the public.' 122 Ga. 190(3, 4, 5), 50 S.E. 68. Other courts have defined the right of privacy as 'the right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity, * * * [or] the unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one's personality, the publicizing of one's private affairs with which the public had no legitimate concern.' 41 Am.Jur. 925, 934, §§ 2, 12; Voneye v. Turner, Ky., 240 S.W.2d 588(3); Brents v. Morgan, 221 Ky. 765, 299 S.W. 967, 55 A.L.R. 964. See also Restatement of the Law of Torts, Vol. 4, p. 398, § 867.

3. Whether a letter written by a creditor to an employer notifying him that his employee is indebted to the creditor and seeking the employer's aid in the collection of the debt...