Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 February 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2002–255.,2002–255. |
| Citation | 816 A.2d 1001,149 N.H. 148 |
| Parties | Helen REMSBURG, Administratrix of the Estate of Amy Lynn Boyer, v. DOCUSEARCH, INC., d/b/a Docusearch.Com & a. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Gottesman and Hollis, P.A., of Nashua (David A. Gottesman and Anna Barbara Hantz on the brief, and Mr. Gottesman orally), for the plaintiff.
Getman, Stacey, Tamposi, Schulthess & Steere, PA, of Bedford (Andrew R. Schulman and Dona Feeney on the brief, and Mr. Schulman orally), for defendants Docusearch Inc., Wing and a Prayer, Inc. and Daniel Cohn.
Law Office of Hess & Fraas, of Bow (Carol L. Hess on the brief), for defendant Kenneth Zeiss.
Sichenzia Ross Friedman & Ference, of New York, New York (Steven B. Ross on the brief), and Brennan Caron Lenehan & Iacopino, of Manchester (Michael J. Iacopino on the brief and orally), for defendant Michele Gambino.
Chris J. Hoofnagle & a., of Washington, D.C., by brief, for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, as amicus curiae.
Scott H. Harris, of Manchester, by brief, for the New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association, as amicus curiae.
John M. Healy and Jordan G. Ulery, appearing pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 33(2), by brief, for the New Hampshire League of Investigators, Inc., as amicus curiae.
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 34, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire (Barbadoro , C.J.) certified to us the following questions of law:
For the reasons expressed below, we respond to the first, second and fifth questions in the affirmative, and the third and fourth questions in the negative.
We adopt the district court's recitation of the facts. Docusearch, Inc. and Wing and a Prayer, Inc. (WAAP) jointly own and operate an Internet-based investigation and information service known as Docusearch.com. Daniel Cohn and Kenneth Zeiss each own 50% of each company's stock. Cohn serves as president of both companies and Zeiss serves as a director of WAAP. Cohn is licensed as a private investigator by both the State of Florida and Palm Beach County, Florida.
On July 29, 1999, New Hampshire resident Liam Youens contacted Docusearch through its Internet website and requested the date of birth for Amy Lynn Boyer, another New Hampshire resident. Youens provided Docusearch his name, New Hampshire address, and a contact telephone number. He paid the $20 fee by credit card. Zeiss placed a telephone call to Youens in New Hampshire on the same day. Zeiss cannot recall the reason for the phone call, but speculates that it was to verify the order. The next day, July 30, 1999, Docusearch provided Youens with the birth dates for several Amy Boyers, but none was for the Amy Boyer sought by Youens. In response, Youens e-mailed Docusearch inquiring whether it would be possible to get better results using Boyer's home address, which he provided. Youens gave Docusearch a different contact phone number.
Later that same day, Youens again contacted Docusearch and placed an order for Boyer's social security number (SSN), paying the $45 fee by credit card. On August 2, 1999, Docusearch obtained Boyer's social security number from a credit reporting agency as a part of a "credit header" and provided it to Youens. A "credit header" is typically provided at the top of a credit report and includes a person's name, address and social security number. The next day, Youens placed an order with Docusearch for Boyer's employment information, paying the $109 fee by credit card, and giving Docusearch the same phone number he had provided originally. Docusearch phone records indicate that Zeiss placed a phone call to Youens on August 6, 1999. The phone number used was the one Youens had provided with his follow-up inquiry regarding Boyer's birth date. The phone call lasted for less than one minute, and no record exists concerning its topic or whether Zeiss was able to speak with Youens. On August 20, 1999, having received no response to his latest request, Youens placed a second request for Boyer's employment information, again paying the $109 fee by credit card. On September 1, 1999, Docusearch refunded Youens' first payment of $109 because its efforts to fulfill his first request for Boyer's employment information had failed.
With his second request for Boyer's employment information pending, Youens placed yet another order for information with Docusearch on September 6, 1999. This time, he requested a "locate by social security number" search for Boyer. Youens paid the $30 fee by credit card, and received the results of the search—Boyer's home address—on September 7, 1999.
On September 8, 1999, Docusearch informed Youens of Boyer's employment address. Docusearch acquired this address through a subcontractor, Michele Gambino, who had obtained the information by placing a "pretext" telephone call to Boyer in New Hampshire. Gambino lied about who she was and the purpose of her call in order to convince Boyer to reveal her employment information. Gambino had no contact with Youens, nor did she know why Youens was requesting the information.
On October 15, 1999, Youens drove to Boyer's workplace and fatally shot her as she left work. Youens then shot and killed himself. A subsequent police investigation revealed that Youens kept firearms and ammunition in his bedroom, and maintained a website containing references to stalking and killing Boyer as well as other information and statements related to violence and killing.
All persons have a duty to exercise reasonable care not to subject others to an unreasonable risk of harm. See Walls v. Oxford Management Co., 137 N.H. 653, 656, 633 A.2d 103 (1993). Whether a defendant's conduct creates a risk of harm to others sufficiently foreseeable to charge the defendant with a duty to avoid such conduct is a question of law, Iannelli v. Burger King Corp., 145 N.H. 190, 193, 761 A.2d 417 (2000), because "the existence of a duty does not arise solely from the relationship between the parties, but also from the need for protection against reasonably foreseeable harm." Hungerford v. Jones, 143 N.H. 208, 211, 722 A.2d 478 (1998) (quotation omitted). Thus, in some cases, a party's actions give rise to a duty. Walls , 137 N.H. at 656, 633 A.2d 103. Parties owe a duty to those third parties foreseeably endangered by their conduct with respect to those risks whose likelihood and magnitude make the conduct unreasonably dangerous. Hungerford , 143 N.H. at 211, 722 A.2d 478.
In situations in which the harm is caused by criminal misconduct, however, determining whether a duty exists is complicated by the competing rule "that a private citizen has no general duty to protect others from the criminal attacks of third parties." Dupont v. Aavid Thermal Technologies, 147 N.H. 706, 709, 798 A.2d 587 (2002). This rule is grounded in the fundamental unfairness of holding private citizens responsible for the unanticipated criminal acts of third parties, because "[u]nder all ordinary and normal circumstances, in the absence of any reason to expect the contrary, the actor may reasonably proceed upon the assumption that others will obey the law." Walls , 137 N.H. at 657–58, 633 A.2d 103 (quotation omitted).
In certain limited circumstances, however, we have recognized that there are exceptions to the general rule where a duty to exercise reasonable care will arise. See Dupont , 147 N.H. at 709, 798 A.2d 587. We have held that such a duty may arise because: (1) a special relationship exists; (2) special circumstances exist; or (3) the duty has been voluntarily assumed. Id .. The special circumstances exception includes situations where there is "an especial temptation and opportunity for criminal misconduct brought about by the defendant." Walls , 137 N.H. at 658, 633 A.2d 103 (quotation omitted). This exception follows from the rule that a party who realizes or should realize that his conduct has created a condition which involves an unreasonable risk of harm to another has a duty to exercise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hynes
...by another's use of any method, act or practice declared unlawful." RSA 358–A:10, I (emphasis added); see, e.g., Remsburg v. Docusearch, 149 N.H. 148, 160, 816 A.2d 1001 (2003) (holding that person deceived by investigator proper party to bring suit under CPA, notwithstanding lack of privit......
-
Martin v. Mooney
...for public disclosure of private facts. Defendants rely on three cases in support of this proposition. See Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148, 157, 816 A.2d 1001 (2003) ; Moxley v. Reg'l Transit Servs., 722 F. Supp. 977, 980-81 (W.D.N.Y. 1989) ; McGarry v. Univ. of San Diego, 154 Ca......
-
Schaefer v. Indymac Mortg. Servs.
...Plourde, 917 A.2d at 1254–55. No such special relationship was alleged to exist in this case. 6.See, e.g., Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148, 816 A.2d 1001, 1009 (2003) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C (1977)); Valenti v. NET Props. Mgmt., 142 N.H. 633, 710 A.2d 399, ......
-
Doe v. Friendfinder Network, Inc.
...cause of action for infringement of the right to publicity as set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148, 157, 816 A.2d 1001 (2003). Under this rule, "`[o]ne who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject......
-
Table of Cases
...111 F.T.C. 206 (1988), 11, 12, 13, 14, 36 Removatron Int’l v. FTC, 884 F.2d 1489 (1st Cir. 1989), 5, 445 Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 816 A.2d 1001 (N.H. 2003), 1009 Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1 (1974), 443 Res. Developers v. Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foun......
-
State Consumer Protection Laws
...1992). 2324. Averill v. Cox, 761 A.2d 1083, 1087 (N.H. 2000). 2325. N.H. REV.STAT.ANN. § 358-A:l(II). 2326. Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 816 A.2d 1001, 1011 (N.H. 2003) (holding that a private investigator who engaged in pretextual phone calls to obtain information used in the commission o......
-
No Harm No Foul: Limits on Damages Awards for Individuals Subject to a Data Breach
...of jurisdiction, or FRCP 12(b)(6), for a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 18. Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148, 152, 816 A.2d 1001 (2003). 19. Id. 20. Id. 21. See Key v. DSW, Inc., 454 F. Supp.2d 684 (S.D. Ohio 2006); Stollenwerk v. Tri-West Healthcare ......
-
To Serve and Protect
...release of information that does result in physical harm is compensable in tort. See Remsberg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148, 816 A.2d 1001 (2002). FN16. Restatement (second) of Torts §302B cmt. d (1965). FN17. See Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148, 816 A.2d 1001 (2002); Bell v.......