Patton v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 22 April 1948
• Docket Number: 17649.
• Parties: PATTON v. JACOBS et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

78 N.E.2d 789

118 Ind.App. 358

PATTON v. JACOBS et al.

No. 17649.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

April 22, 1948

Earl J. Wynn, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Byron Emswiller, Albert Stump, Owen S. Boling and Robert F. Biehl all of Indianapolis, for appellees.

CRUMPACKER Judge.

This is an action to recover damages resulting from the appellees' alleged invasion of the appellant's right to privacy. The appellees filed separate demurrers to the complaint, both of which were sustained, and, upon the appellant's refusal to plead over, the court entered judgment for the appellees from which this appeal is taken.

In substance the complaint alleges that the appellee Harry A Jacobs is a practising doctor of medicine in Indianapolis Indiana, and that he employed the appellee, Medical and Dental Business Bureau, Inc., to collect a bill for professional services rendered by him to the appellant, the payment of which he asserted was long past due. That in its efforts to collect this account and with the purpose of coercing the appellant into paying the same said Bureau wrote two letters to the Veterans Administration of the United States Government in Marion County, Indiana, by whom she is employed as a telephone operator. Omitting caption and signature the first of these letters is as follows:

'If we have been correctly informed, you have an employee by the name of Mrs. Frances F. Patton (Tele. Opr.) who is indebted to Dr. Harry A. Jacobs in the amount of $65.00.

'In this event, will you ask him to contact us at once in reference to the above account which we have for liquidation. Anything you can do to assist us to collect this bill will be greatly appreciated.'

That this letter was followed by another about a week later which, also omitting caption and signature, is in the following words:

'Thanks for your letter of January 11th, regarding the above subject.

'If Mrs. Patton received notices of indebtedness of varied amounts it was probably due to the addition of service rendered after the previous statements were sent out. Of course there is always the possibility of a clerical error.

'We are sending you a copy of the itemized statement covering a period of five (5) years of service.

'You can see that she did not consistently pay each time service was rendered and the accumulation of unpaid visits might have been greater than she realized.

'We are also sending you a letter from Dr. Jacobs concerning the handling of this account.

'Since Mrs. Patton has stated she welcomes a law suit Dr. Jacobs is willing to accommodate her. The itemized statement is a true statement of the account and will be entered as exhibit 'A' if legal action is necessary.

'We will appreciate it if you discuss this matter again with Mrs. Patton and anything you may do to persuade her to liquidate this indebtedness.'

Enclosed with this second letter was an itemized statement of the account in controversy showing a balance due of $65 together with a letter from Harry A. Jacobs addressed 'To Whom it May Concern' and which, omitting signature, reads as follows: 'I have made exery legitimate effort to collect the account of Mrs. Frances Patton. I have sent innumerable statements and the only response we ever had was when Mrs. Patton called my secretary and asked her to inform me that she would not pay her bill through the Medical and Dental Business Bureau. My secretary told her to come in to the office where she could see the itemized account and discuss it and she seemed satisfied with this arrangement. On the basis of her not coming in, after waiting several months, I have turned the account over to the Medical and Dental Business Bureau for collection. I have always given Mrs. Patton the best treatment I knew how and treated her courteously and have never had any inkling that she was not satisfied with her treatment nor that she did not intend to pay for it. She makes the contention that she had sent me several patients, and I may say in return that on the basis of my friendship to her I have made every effort to make my charges as reasonable as possible. There is, to my notion, no reason whatsoever why this account should not be paid.'

The complaint further alleges that said letters were sent by the appellees to the appellant's employer with intent to expose her to public contempt and ridicule and to cause an evil opinion of her in the mind of her employer and the public generally as a person devoid of integrity and a sense of fair dealing. That said letters were read by numerous and divers employees and executive officers of her said employer and as a direct and proximate result of such invasion of her right of privacy she suffered and continues to suffer great mental pain, anguish and humiliation and has become ill and sick from worry and anxiety concerning the injury to her good name, all to her damage in the sum of $3,000.

The appellees profess some confusion as to whether this complaint seeks damages for an alleged libel in the publication of the letters involved or because they operated to invade her right of privacy and therefore they demurred for want of sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action on either theory. As a complaint for damages resulting from libel it is clearly insufficient. The words complained of are not libelous per se and there is no allegation of special damages. The general rule is expressed thus in 33 Am.Jur. Libel and Slander, § 60: 'As respects a charge of failure to pay debts, without imputation of insolvency, it...