Kobeck v. Nabisco, Inc.
| Decision Date | 17 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 65879,65879 |
| Citation | 305 S.E.2d 183,166 Ga.App. 652 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 1 IER Cases 200 KOBECK v. NABISCO, INC., et al. |
Sally B. Greer, Atlanta, for appellant.
Philip S. Coe, Atlanta, for appellees.
Plaintiff Carol T. Kobeck brought this action against defendant Nabisco, Inc. and Harold Carmical alleging invasion of privacy and seeking damages of $10,000,000 for "pain and suffering, emotional anguish and psychological damages," $5,000,000 for "loss of services, companionship and affection of [her deceased husband] Ronnie Kobeck," and $5,000,000 for "aggravated damages." Following the completion of pretrial discovery, the trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment from which plaintiff brings this appeal.
The material facts in this case are essentially without dispute. Plaintiff was supposed to have worked the 11:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. shift at the Nabisco bakery on the night of April 21, 1981. Instead of reporting to work, and unbeknownst to her husband, she spent the night at the home of her paramour. Plaintiff's husband called the bakery to talk to his wife and was told that she had not reported for work that night. Later in the day on April 22, still not having heard from his wife, plaintiff's husband went to the bakery and spoke to defendant Carmical, the assistant personnel manager, who confirmed that plaintiff had not in fact worked the night before. Plaintiff contends that Carmical also revealed to her husband records that showed that she had been absent from work on several other occasions in the recent past when she told him that she had been working. Plaintiff again did not return home on April 22 or the night of April 23. Plaintiff's husband called her at work on the night of April 22 and told her that he had seen her attendance records and knew that she had not been working when she said she had and that he felt that perhaps she had been seeing another man. According to plaintiff, this was the first inkling her husband had that there may have been another man in the picture and he seemed upset. She just said, "You're wrong," and hung up on him. This was the last time she talked to him. Plaintiff's husband committed suicide on April 24, 1981 and left a suicide note that said how much he loved his wife and that he felt he was doing the right thing so that she could be happy. Plaintiff contends that the defendants acted negligently in revealing her absenteeism record to her husband and that this action constituted an invasion of her right to privacy, for which she is entitled to damages for mental pain and suffering, as well as the value of her husband's life.
1. Since the branch head case of Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 190, 50 S.E. 68 (1905), Georgia has recognized the right of privacy, violation of which is a direct invasion of a legal right of the individual, a tort. Id. at 201, 50 S.E. 68.
We are aware that an employee's personnel file is generally considered confidential. See, e.g., 1977 Op. Att'y Gen. 77-56. However, defendants argue that Carmical's response to plaintiff's husband's inquiry into her absences from work constituted a privileged communication because the answer was made in the performance of a private moral duty. See OCGA § 51-5-7(2) (formerly Code Ann. § 105-709(2)). Whitley v. Newman, 9 Ga.App. 89(4), 70 S.E. 686 (1911). Accord, Cochran v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 72 Ga.App. 458, 462-3, 34 S.E.2d 296 (1945); see also Jones v. J.C. Penney Co., 164 Ga.App. 432(1), 297 S.E.2d 339 (1982). While we are inclined to find the good faith communication made by Carmical to be privileged, we need not resolve the issue in order to render a decision in this case.
2. Additionally, we question whether the information disclosed by defendants to plaintiff's husband was of such a private nature that its dissemination would constitute an invasion of her privacy. The record discloses that neither Carmical nor anyone else at Nabisco (except two female co-workers in whom she had confided) knew of plaintiff's extra-marital affair at the time the "Absenteeism Record" was shown to her husband. The only information disclosed to plaintiff's husband by defendants was her attendance record, from which he apparently drew his own conclusions. In our view, this report, containing only information relating to her attendance at work,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayor & City Council of Richmond Hill v. Maia
...under the circumstances presented. See, e.g. Harvey v. Nichols, 260 Ga.App. 187, 193–194(2), 581 S.E.2d 272 (2003); Kobeck, 166 Ga.App. at 654(3), 305 S.E.2d 183(no evidence negligence was proximate cause of suicide).7 Regardless of the validity of Appling's holding and its exceptions,8 thi......
-
Pospicil v. The Buying Office, Inc.
...of intrusion most commonly involves a physical invasion into the plaintiff's seclusion or private affairs. See Kobeck v. Nabisco, Inc., 166 Ga.App. 652, 654, 305 S.E.2d 183 (1983); see also Cabaniss v. Hipsley, 114 Ga.App. 367, 371, 151 S.E.2d 496 (1966) (citing cases). The Georgia Supreme ......
-
Anderson v. Mergenhagen, A06A1752.
...(1985); Cox Communications v. Lowe, 173 Ga.App. 812, 814(2), 328 S.E.2d 384 (1985) (physical precedent only); Kobeck v. Nabisco, 166 Ga.App. 652, 654(2), 305 S.E.2d 183 (1983); Williams v. Church's Fried Chicken, 158 Ga.App. 26, 32(5), 279 S.E.2d 465 (1981); Hines v. Columbus Bank, etc., Co......
-
Jarrett v. Butts
...a physical intrusion analogous to a trespass, as is required to recover for an intrusion upon seclusion. See Kobeck v. Nabisco, Inc., 166 Ga.App. 652, 654(2), 305 S.E.2d 183 (1983). The photographs were taken in the classroom and hallway of a school building during regular school hours when......