Tucker v. American Employers' Ins. Co.
| Citation | 13 A.L.R.3d 1020,171 So.2d 437 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 4723,4723 |
| Parties | Betty J. TUCKER, joined by her husband, Waters B. Tucker, Appellants, v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS' INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Jack W. Harwood, and Carl W. Geisler, Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
J. D. Farish, Jr., of Farish & Farish, West Palm Beach, for appellants.
James M. Adams, of Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellees.
The plaintiff, Betty J. Tucker, brought an action for personal injuries against the defendant following an automobile accident. The attorney for the defendant employed a private investigator to conduct a surveillance of the activities of the plaintiff, which included the taking of motion pictures, the purpose of which was to discover if there was any inconsistency between the injuries which she alleged and her actual physical activity. The plaintiff then filed a complaint alleging that the defendant wilfully and maliciously caused the plaintiff to be 'openly followed and shadowed' in such a manner as to make the plaintiff and the general public aware that she was being followed, and causing her to suffer certain injuries. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, attaching an affidavit in which the manager of the investigating agency stated that the following was not open, but was done in secret. The plaintiff filed an opposing affidavit to the effect that the following was done openly. On the basis of these affidavits and the pleadings the lower court entered a summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The judgment stated that the court was relying on the case of Forster v. Manchester, 1963, 410 Pa. 192, 189 A.2d 147, which we shall discuss later in this opinion. The plaintiff has appealed on the basis that a material issue of fact was raised as to whether the following was open.
It is well established that this state recognizes the tort of invasion of the right of privacy. See Jacova v. Southern Radio and Television Co., Fla.1955, 83 So.2d 34; Cason v. Baskin, 1944, 155 Fla. 198, 20 So.2d 243, 168 A.L.R. 430; and cases cited in 32 Fla.Jur., Torts, § 9 (Supplement). The question of whether the investigation of a claimant in a personal injury case can give rise to this tort has not been answered in Florida.
In considering this question it must be borne in mind that it is not uncommon for defendants to investigate plaintiffs in order to determine the validity of a claim in a personal injury case. Because of the public interest in exposing fraudulent claims, a plaintiff must expect that a reasonable investigation will be made subsequent to the filing of a claim. However, there should be certain limits as to how the investigation is conducted, because there is also a social utility in not permitting a defendant to harass or intimidate a plaintiff into settling a claim on less favorable terms than those which he would voluntarily accept.
In Forster v. Manchester, supra, which was cited in the summary judgment, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the claimant's right of privacy had not been invaded. In that personal injury case two investigators were to report on the everyday activities and movements of the plaintiff and to obtain motion pictures. They followed her in her car, trying to remain one block behind. She observed them several times, noticed the camera they had, and became somewhat disturbed. The court stated that the few times that the plaintiff observed the investigators were purely inadvertent, that the investigators did not intentionally expose themselves, and on these facts there could be no liability.
The appellant-plaintiff cites Pinkerton National Detective Agency, Inc. v. Stevens, 1963, 108 Ga.App. 159, 132 S.E.2d 119, in which the Georgia Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff could recover damages for invasion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolfson v. Lewis, Civil Action No. 96-1162.
...of "intrusion upon the plaintiff's physical solitude or seclusion, as by invading his home."); Tucker v. American Employers' Ins. Co., 171 So.2d 437, 438 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App. 2nd 1965). The Court notes the parties do not dispute the application of Pennsylvania and Florida law to the facts of ......
-
Tureen v. Equifax, Inc.
...intrusion. See Noble v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 33 Cal.App.3d 654, 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 Investiga......
-
Nader v. General Motors Corp.
...view or has been voluntarily revealed to others. (See Forster v. Manchester, 410 Pa. 192, 189 A.2d 147; Tucker v. American Employers' Ins. Co., 171 So.2d 437, 13 A.L.R.3d 1020 (Fla.App.); see, also, Prosser, Torts (3d ed.), p. 835; Restatement, 2d, Torts, Tent. Draft No. 13, § 652B, comment......
-
Noble v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...shadowing a claimant could amount to an actionable invasion of privacy, if it is unreasonably intrusive. (Tucker v. American Employers' Insurance Co. (Fla.App.1965), 171 So.2d 437.) A Georgia court also has held that an investigation done in a frightening manner may provide a cause of actio......
-
Looking Out for Your Employees: Employers' Surreptitious Physical Surveillance of Employees and the Tort of Invasion of Privacy
...surveillance constituted "a course of hounding, harassing, intimidating, and frightening conduct") Tucker v. Am. Employers' Ins. Co., 171 So. 2d 437, 437-39 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965) (holding that genuine issue of fact existed as to whether plaintiff could establish a claim for invasion of......