Wolfe v. Arroyo
| Decision Date | 13 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 15647,15647 |
| Citation | 84 A.L.R.3d 549,543 S.W.2d 11 |
| Parties | David C. WOLFE, Appellant, v. Richard C. ARROYO et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
John Michael Doyle, Frank D. Johnson, Doyle & Johnson, San Antonio, for appellant.
Morton Baird, San Antonio, Richard C. Arroyo, Brownsville, for appellees.
Appellant has perfected his appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment in his suit to recover damages from appellees, Robert R. Sanchez and Richard C. Arroyo, for filing a groundless and unfounded suit for medical malpractice against him. Dr. Richard Hernandez, Jr . was joined as a party defendant, but a non-suit was taken as to the claim against him. 1
On July 31, 1974, Cause No. 74CI--5852, styled Robert R. Sanchez vs . James F. Huff and David C. Wolfe, was filed in the 150th District Court of Bexar County by attorney Arroyo on behalf of Sanchez. It was alleged that Dr. Wolfe committed certain acts of negligence in failing to properly diagnose and treat Sanchez for injuries he sustained in an accident. On January 27, 1975, a take-nothing summary judgment was entered in favor of Dr. Wolfe.
On June 13, 1975, Dr. Wolfe filed this suit wherein it was alleged that Sanchez and Arroyo knew or should have known that there existed no cause of action against Dr. Wolfe and yet these parties made allegations which they know or should have known were untrue. It was alleged that Arroyo thereby showed that 'he meant to obstruct the administration of justice, and bring the Court system of the State of Texas and County of Bexar into disrepute.' It was further alleged that both parties 'conspired to bring an unfounded claim with the fixed purpose to injure the Plaintiff, and that each of the Defendants fore-saw the resulting damage to Plaintiff by filing said baseless action, (and) the filing of said unfounded claim was a proximate cause of the injury to the Plaintiff.'
Dr. Wolfe alleged that he suffered mental trauma requiring treatment by a psychiatrist and preventing the performance of his duties as an orthopedic surgeon. Furthermore, his insurance premiums were increased as a result of the suit against him. He asserted that the filing of the baseless cause of action produced ridicule and embarrassment toward him by his peers and colleagues which would result in their refusal to refer patients to him. He sought pecuniary damages in the amount of $750,000.00 for his embarrassment and probable loss of earnings in the future.
Sanchez and Arroyo urged by a motion for summary judgment that Dr. Wolfe had not asserted a cause of action under Texas law in that the Court, in Pye v. Cardwell, 110 Tex. 572, 222 S.W. 153 (1920), established the rule that the imposition of court costs is the sole penalty for wrongful prosecution of civil suits unless there has been a seizure of the person or property of the plaintiff. Appellant did not reply to the motion for summary judgment. The trial court concluded that no cause of action exists under Texas law as to the facts alleged against appellees and granted a take-nothing summary judgment.
Appellant urges on this appeal that he has alleged a cause of action against appellees for constructive contempt and for an invasion of privacy. He makes no complaint as to the trial court's implied finding that he has no cause of action for malicious prosecution and we make no determination regarding such implied finding.
Appellant's contention that he has alleged a cause of action for constructive contempt is based on the allegation that Arroyo meant to obstruct the administration of justice and bring the court system into disrepute by filing a groundless lawsuit. Civil contempt proceedings have been defined as those instituted to preserve and enforce the rights of private parties to suits and to compel obedience to orders and decrees made for their benefit. See Ex parte Wolters, 64 Tex.Cr.R. 238, 144 S.W. 531 (1911). There is no allegation that Arroyo violated any order of the court in filing the suit. Appellant does not assert a cause of action for contempt by alleging that appellee filed a groundless suit.
In Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.1973), the Supreme Court held that an unwarranted invasion of the right of privacy constitutes a legal injury for which a remedy will be granted. The Court considered two definitions in adopting this rule.
The right of privacy has been defined as the right of an individual to be left alone, to live a life of seclusion, to be free from unwarranted publicity. 77 C.J.S. Right of Privacy § 1. A judicially approved definition of the right of privacy is that it is the right to be free from 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. 62 Am.Jur.2d, Privacy § 1, p. 677, and cases cited.
It has been suggested by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGrew v. Heinold Commodities, Inc.
...Devlin v. Greiner (1977), 147 N.J.Super. 446, 371 A.2d 380, 390; Lee v. Nash (1983), 65 Or.App. 538, 671 P.2d 703, 706; Wolfe v. Arroyo (Tex.Civ.App.1976), 543 S.W.2d 11. See also Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 586, 587, 652F (1977). But see Montgomery Ward v. Larragoite (1970), 81 N.M. 3......
-
Rodriguez v. Carroll
...590 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.Civ. App. — Houston 1st Dist. 1979, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Martin, supra note 1; Moiel, supra. See also Wolfe v. Arroyo, 543 S.W.2d 11 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio, 1976, no writ). In the case at bar, Plaintiff has failed to allege any damages resulting from interference w......
-
Lyddon v. Shaw
...Drago v. Buonagurio (1977), 89 Misc.2d 171, 391 N.Y.S.2d 61; Spencer v. Burglass (1976), La.App., 337 So.2d 596; Wolfe v. Arroyo (1976), Tex.Civ.App., 543 S.W.2d 11. No court of review in this State has yet passed upon the precise point presented here. Dr. Lyddon urges that there are import......
-
McLean v. International Harvester Co.
...are immune from an action alleging defamation or invasion of privacy. James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914, 916 (Tex.1982); Wolfe v. Arroyo, 543 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Tex.Civ.App.1976). The Restatement provides that the privileges applicable in defamation actions also "apply to the publication of any ma......
-
Privacy Issues in the Workplace
...an invasion of privacy. See, e.g., McLean v. Int’l Harvester Co. , 817 F.2d 1214, 1220 (5th Cir. (Tex.) June 02, 1987); Wolfe v. Arroyo, 543 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1976, no writ). With regard to intrusion claims, an absolute privilege likely would apply if the intrusion ( e.g.......
-
Privacy Issues in the Workplace
...an invasion of privacy. See, e.g., McLean v. Int’l Harvester Co. , 817 F.2d 1214, 1220 (5th Cir. (Tex.) June 02, 1987); Wolfe v. Arroyo, 543 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1976, no writ). With regard to intrusion claims, an absolute privilege likely would apply if the intrusion ( e.g.......
-
Table of cases
...1151 (5th Cir. 1994), App. 23-3 Woldetadik v. 7-Eleven, Inc. , 2012 WL 2912328, *6 (N.D. Tex. July 16, 2012), §21:1.A.3 Wolfe v. Arroyo , 543 S.W.2d 11 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1976, no writ), §28:3.C.1 Wolfe v. C.S.P.H., Inc. , 24 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.), §30:11.B.1 Wolf ......
-
Privacy issues in the workplace
...an invasion of privacy. See, e.g., McLean v. Int’l Harvester Co. , 817 F.2d 1214, 1220 (5th Cir. (Tex.) June 02, 1987); Wolfe v. Arroyo, 543 S.W.2d 11, 13 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1976, no writ). With regard to intrusion claims, an absolute privilege likely would apply if the intrusion ( e.g.......