Truxes v. Kenco Enterprises, Inc.
Decision Date | 21 February 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 9958,9958 |
Citation | 80 S.D. 104,119 N.W.2d 914 |
Parties | Guy TRUXES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KENCO ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.
Dana, Golden, Moore & Rasmussen, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and respondent.
Plaintiff brought this action against Kenco Enterprises, Inc., owner and publisher of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, a daily newspaper, to recover damages claimed to have been sustained by reason of the unauthorized publication and circulation of his photograph in the Sunday, October 23, 1960, issue of the Argus Leader. He alleged that the use of his photograph in connection with an article dealing with the violated his right or privacy and he was thereby subjected to ridicule and suffered mental distress and injury to his feelings. Trial to a jury resulted in a verdict for $3500. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for a new trial. Motion was denied and defendant has appealed.
The photograph in controversy and the accompanying article occupied the top half of a page of defendant's newspaper. The headlines 'Aging: Adversity or Fortune' and 'State's Elderly Citizens Plagued By Financial Hardship' in large type appeared at the top of the page. Below the photograph of plaintiff standing in front of a case containing small compartments and sorting mail was the following caption: Plaintiff was not mentioned in the text and the photograph was not necessary to the article.
Plaintiff's testimony was to the effect that he objected to having his picture taken; that he did not know for what purpose it was to be used; that he was not consulted regarding its use or compensated; that as a result of the publication he felt hurt and upset; and that for some time he did not associate with friends because they 'razzed' and 'kidded' him about the publication. The author of the article testified that publication of the photograph was with knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. But plaintiff is entitled to have the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to him and to have all conflicts in evidence resolved in favor of the verdict.
The first and principal question presented is whether an action may be maintained for an invasion of the right of privacy. The question is one of first impression in this state.
The right of privacy has been defined as the right of an individual to be let alone, to live a life of seclusion, to be free from unwarranted publicity. 77 C.J.S. Right of Privacy Sec. 1; see also Davis, What Do We Mean By the 'Right of Privacy', 4 South Dakota Law Rev. 1. The author of an annotation in 138 A.L.R. 22 offers the following as a definition of what constitutes an actionable violation of such a right: 'The unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one's personality, the publicizing of one's private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one's private activities, in such manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.'
The defendant points out that no right of action for invasion of privacy is recognized by statute in this state or decision of this court. It is contended that the provisions of SDC 65.0103 providing that rules of the common law not in conflict with the constitution and statutes of this state shall be in force must be construed as referring to the common law as it existed at the time of the original enactment of the provisions of this section by Chapter 105, Laws 1890, and hence the modern doctrine of privacy as a development of the common law is not adopted and declared to be the law within South Dakota. The decisions of this court hold to the contrary. The common law of this state is not so limited, but is flexible and susceptible of adaptation to the needs and demands of changing times. Moberg v. Scott, 38 S.D. 422, 161 N.W. 998, L.R.A.1917D, 732; Holmstrom v. Wall, 64 S.D. 467, 268 N.W. 423.
The courts had not prior to 1890 granted relief expressly for invasion of right of privacy although a right 'to be let alone' had been recognized 'on the basis of defamation, or the invasion of some property right, or a breach of confidence or an implied contract'. Prosser, Privacy, 48 Cal.L.Rev. 383. It was not until the publication in that year of an article by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis (later Justice Brandeis) in 4 Harv. Law Rev. 193 was the term the 'right of privacy' introduced and defined as a legal concept. The authors after thorough discussion of the question concluded that there is a common law right of privacy which had in some instances been protected under the guise of property rights, and that violation of the right itself is actionable. The right of privacy is generally recognized and a preponderance of authority supports the conclusion that, independently of the common rights of property, contract, reputation, and physical integrity, the right exists and an invasion of the right gives rise to a cause of action. The numerous decisions supporting these propositions are cited in the following annotations: 138 A.L.R. 22, 168 A.L.R. 446 and 14 A.L.R.2d 750.
Arguments in support of the right of privacy are summarized in 41 Am.Jur., Privacy, Sec. 9:
Restatement, Torts, Sec. 867, recognizes the existence of the right: 'A person who unreasonably and seriously interferes with another's interest in not having his affairs known to others or his likeness exhibited to the public is liable to the other.'
Concluding that the right of privacy has a foundation in the present day common law and is supported by the weight of authority, we hold that an action in this jurisdiction may be maintained for invasion of such right.
A consideration of the limits of the right of privacy requires a weighing of such right 'to be let alone' as against the public right to news and information. In the article by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis (4 Harv.L.Rev. 193, 214 et seq.), this limitation was thus recognized: In Carlisle v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 20 Cal.Rptr. 405, 414, the court considering the right of recovery for publication of plaintiff's photograph and accompanying article said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'Dell v. School Dist. of Independence
...349, 354--55, 102 N.E.2d 691 (1951); Fowler v. City of Cleveland, 100 Ohio St. 158, 126 N.E. 72, 76(1919); Truxes v. Kenco Enterprises, 80 S.D. 104, 119 N.W.2d 914, 916 (1963); Powell v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 217 Tenn. 503, 398 S.W.2d 727, 730--31 (1966); Midkiff v. Midkiff, 201 Va. 8......
-
Hart v. Miller
...to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities. (quoting Truxes v. Kenco Enterprises, Inc., 80 S.D. 104, 119 N.W.2d 914, 916 (1963) (citation omitted)). Therefore, the majority's claim that Hart failed to cite authority is clearly [¶ 55.] T......
-
Time, Inc v. Hill, 22
...v. Meredith, 378 Pa. 609, 107 A.2d 860 (1954); Meetze v. Associated Press, 230 S.C. 330, 95 S.E.2d 606 (1956); Truxes v. Kenco Enterprises, 80 S.D. 104, 119 N.W.2d 914 (1963). See Restatement, Torts § 867, comment d 8. 'One of the clearest exceptions to the statutory prohibition is the rule......
-
Lawrence v. A.S. Abell Co.
...v. Norban, 396 Pa. 94, 151 A.2d 476 (1959); Meetze v. Associated Press, 230 S.C. 330, 95 S.E.2d 606 (1956); Truxes v. Kenco Enterprises, Inc., 80 S.D. 104, 119 N.W.2d 914 (1963); Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.1973); Roach v. Harper, 143 W.Va. 869, 105 S.E.2d 564 (1958). See also......