Souder v. Pendleton Detectives, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 4227,4227 |
| Citation | 88 So.2d 716 |
| Parties | William D. SOUDER et ux. v. PENDLETON DETECTIVES, Inc., et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
A. Alva Brumfield, Baton Rouge, Wm. T. Bennett, Clinton, for appellant.
Hammett & Bertel, New Orleans, Richard H. Kilbourne, Clinton, for appellees.
This is a suit for damages allegedly resulting from an invasion of the right of privacy of the petitioners, William D. Souder and his wife, Mrs. Mildred Sessions Souder. The defendants are the Pendleton Detectives, Inc., and their alleged principal, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. The defendants each filed an exception of vagueness as well as an exception of no right or cause of action. Although the Lower Court did not consider the exception of vagueness, the exception of no right or cause of action was maintained, and petitioners' action was dismissed. Petitioners have appealed.
The petition alleges that on or about July 12, 1954, petitioner, William D. Souder was injured while working for W. C. Boatner the sole owner and operator of Boatner Motor Company at Clinton, Louisiana. At the time of the accident, the defendant, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Insurance Company was the workmen's compensation insurer of Mr. Boatner. The petitioner further alleges that the insurance company consistently denied the compensation claims of petitioner, and that it engaged the services of the Pendleton Detectives Inc., 'to shadow, trail, investigate, observe and secure information pertaining to the activities of petitioner as well as to harass and invade his personal safety, comfort and privacy, and generally to cause petitioner worry and anxiety.' Article 12 of the petition provides as follows:
'That these two detectives continued to observe, watch, trail, shadow, eavesdrop, and peek at petitioners during May and June, 1955; that these two detectives, acting within the scope of their authority and employment in all of their activities constantly shadowed, watched and eavesdropped on petitioners, using binoculars on some occasions; that they took pictures of them without their permission or authority; that they trespassed upon petitioners' property without their consent or permission; that they watched them in their home by peeking through their windows and otherwise harassing and otherwise invading the privacy of petitioners.'
Article 13 of the petition alleges that '* * * the detectives made known to the public, the community and to petitioner's neighbors that they were shadowing, following and investigating the activities of petitioners * * *.'
Throughout the petition is the allegation that the actions of the insurance company, through the said detective agency, were calculated to harass and invade the personal safety, comfort and privacy of the petitioner.
The Lower Court sustained the exception of no right or cause of action, without passing on the merits of the exception of vagueness. The petitioners have appealed.
It is fundamental law that the allegations of the petition must be accepted as true in passing on the exceptions filed by the defendant. Therefore, in determining whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galella v. Onassis
...that following the plaintiff closely in public places, inter alia, was an invasion of her privacy. Likewise, in Souder v. Pendleton Detectives, Inc., 88 So.2d 716 (La.App.1956), the court sustained a cause of action based on obtrusive surveillance. And many years ago, in Schultz v. Frankfor......
-
Tureen v. Equifax, Inc.
...109 Cal.Rptr. 269 (1973); Tucker v. American Employers' Insurance Company, 171 So.2d 437 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1965); Souder v. Pendleton Detectives, 88 So.2d 716 (La.App.1956); Note, Constitutional Right of Privacy and Investigative Consumer Reports: Little Brother Is Watching You, 2 Hastings C......
-
Gonzales v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.
...Co., 60 Ga.App. 92, 2 S.E.2d 810 (1939); Pritchett v. Board of Commissioners, 42 Ind.App. 3, 85 N.E. 32 (1908); Souder v. Pendleton Detectives, 88 So.2d 716 (La.App.1956); Welsh v. Pritchard, 125 Mont. 517, 241 P.2d 816 (1952); Moore v. New York Elevated R. R., 130 N.Y. 523, 29 N.E. 997 (18......
-
N.O.C., Inc. v. Schaefer
...Cases. The "detective" cases present situations which are the most analogous to the facts before the court. In Souder v. Pendleton Detectives, 88 So.2d 716 (La.Ct.App.1956), detectives were hired by an insurance company, to investigate, by shadowing and eavesdropping, the activities of plai......
-
The Fourth Amendment and General Law.
...intrusion itself, though general public use could be relevant to social customs. (396.) See, e.g., Souder v. Pendleton Detectives, Inc., 88 So.2d 716, 717-18 (La. Ct. App. 1956); see also Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1,12-16 (2013) (Kagan, J., concurring) (noting that police officers must ......
-
Looking Out for Your Employees: Employers' Surreptitious Physical Surveillance of Employees and the Tort of Invasion of Privacy
...finding of invasion of privacy when conduct constituted harassment under New York's penal law) Souder v. Pendleton Detectives, Inc., 88 So. 2d 716, 718 (La. Ct. App. 1956) (holding that invasion-of-privacy claim would be stated if defendant's activities violated state's criminal Peeping Tom......