Tollefson v. Price
| Decision Date | 23 August 1967 |
| Citation | 247 Or. 398,430 P.2d 990 |
| Parties | , 33 A.L.R.3d 149 Roger TOLLEFSON and Ruth Tollefson, also known as Mrs. Roger Tollefson, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Elmer R. PRICE and Margaret Price, husband and wife, doing business under the firm name and style of Toledo Feed and Seed; and Pioneer Service Company, Inc., an Oregon corporation; and Elmer R. Price, individually and as Editor and Publisher of the Lincoln County Leader, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Dan W. Poling, Newport, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was James H. Lewelling, Newport.
Sidney A. Milligan, Eugene, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Gordon L. Macpherson, Toledo.
Before PERRY, C.J., and McALLISTER, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and FORT, JJ.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in two counts, each charging an invasion of privacy arising out of the publication of a notice by the defendants respecting money alleged to be due from Mrs. Tellefson. A demurrer to the complaint based on the absence of facts sufficient to state a cause of action was sustained. When the plaintiffs declined to plead further, judgment was rendered against them. They appeal.
Plaintiff husband claims to have suffered embarrassment and humiliation because of the publications respecting his wife. For the purpose of the demurrer, if either plaintiff states a cause of action it must be overruled.
The defendant published in the 'Farmers Feed and Seed Store' a document stating in part:
'FOR SALE!
'The following Judgments, Claims, Notes and Accounts are offered * * * for sale to the highest bidder. The right is reserved to reject in full, or in part, any offer:
'NAMES ADDRESSES AMOUNT
(Names of 28 persons including 'Mrs. Roger Tollefson')
'The above listed Judgments, Claims, Notes and Accounts are guaranteed by the owner to be just, correct and undisputed.'
It then alleges this notice was published 'unlawfully and maliciously * * * without right or legal authority,' 'that the claim or accoung against plaintiff * * * is disputed' and that 'the defendants * * * well knew that said claim or account was and is disputed by plaintiffs.'
After alleging 'humiliation,' 'exposure to public contempt and ridicule,' it further alleges that the
A second cause of action is then alleged because of the publication of the above document as an advertisement in the local paper. The complaint also alleges that one of the defendants, Elmer R. Price, is the sole owner of the newspaper and with his wife is the owner of the aforementioned feed and seed store.
The defendants' demurrer admits the allegations and every reasonable intendment to be drawn therefrom.
In Hinish v. Meier & Frank Co., 166 Or. 482, at page 506, 113 P.2d 438, at page 448, 138 A.L.R. 1 (1941), this court stated:
Dean Wade in his carefully considered article, Defamation and the Right of Privacy, 15 Vand.L.Rev. 1093, points out that the tort of invasion of the right of privacy is, like assault and defamation, in reality 'a part of the larger tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering.' He states further at page 1120:
1
Prosser, Torts § 112 at 835 (3d ed., 1964), states as a part of his discussion concerning the public disclosure of private facts as constituting an invasion of the right of privacy:
'* * * It is an invasion of his rights to publish in a newspaper that the plaintiff does not pay his debts, or to post a notice to that effect in a window on the public street, or to cry it aloud in the highway * * *.' 2
He points out that 'The facts disclosed to the public must be private facts, and not public ones' and that 'the matter made public must be one which would be offensive and objectionable to a reasonable man of ordinary sensibilities.'
He states that the elements necessary to establish an invasion of the right of privacy of the kind here involved are first that the disclosure of the private facts must be a public disclosure--that is that there must be publicity, and, second, the disclosure must be in the form of publicity of a highly objectionable kind. To constitute such a disclosure it must be public in the sense of communication either to the public generally or to a large number of persons as distinguished from one individual or a few. 3
Whether or not the conduct of the defendants in publishing the notices alleged in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Briscoe v. Reader's Digest Association, Inc.
...291) or the existence of business debts (Trammell v. Citizens News Co., Inc., Supra, 285 Ky. 529, 148 S.W.2d 708; Tollefson v. Price, Supra, 247 Or. 398, 430 P.2d 990). 17 The consequences of revelation in this case--ostracism, isolation, and the alienation of one's family--make all too cle......
-
Meyer v. 4-D Insulation Co., Inc., 78-2903-L-1
...allowed for mental suffering and anguish. Douglas v. Humble Oil, 251 Or 310, 445 P2d 590 (1968) (conversion); Tollefson v. Price, 247 Or 398, 430 P2d 990, 33 ALR3d 149 (1967) and Hinish v. Meier & Frank Co., 166 Or 482, 113 P2d 438, 133 ALR 1 (1941) (invasion of privacy); Williams v. Joyce,......
-
Blair v. Bank of America, N.A.
...of a highly objectionable kind. Flowers v. Bank of America, 67 Or. App. 791, 794, 679 P.2d 1385 (1984), citing Tollefson v. Price, 247 Or. 398, 401, 430 P.2d 990 (1967). The court concludes that Plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim must be dismissed against on the ground that Plaintiff has......
-
Cain v. Hearst Corp.
...467 P.2d 399, 401 (1970); Gruschus v. Curtis Publishing Co., 342 F.2d 775, 776 (10th Cir.1965) (New Mexico law); Tollefson v. Price, 247 Or. 398, 430 P.2d 990, 991-92 (1967); Bennett v. Norban, 396 Pa. 94, 151 A.2d 476, 477-79 (1959); Todd v. South Carolina Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 276 S.......