To establish a case for privacy in this regard- this must be met

1) that there was an actor prying or intruding on the affairs or seclusion of plaintiff

2) That the intrusion is something that would be objectionable to a reasonable person

And  3) the thing to which there is an instruction or prying is private.

To have an intrusion on the plaintiff's affair or seclusion, does it have to involve a physical entry?

Example?

There does not need to be any physical entry and the thing to which there is an instruction is private. An invasion of the person’s private affair would be putting a microphone in their bed room, filming them through a peephole in their hotel room, drilling a hole in the wall and covering it with a two-way mirror so that you could watch them in their home.

Using a camera on the computer to spy on your through your computer

What is used to decide if an intrusion into pl's affair or seclusion is objectionable?

Where must the intrusion take place?

What is the effect of this on being out in public?

This has to be objectionable to a reasonable person.

So if you bring yourself out to the public eye, then that is not an invasion but if you are in your home, that is invasion.

The invasion has to be about something private usually within the pl’s own private domain

Instrusion on a pl's affair or seclusion- general info

How is it determined?

How is this related to being out in public?

Where must the invasion take place?

This has to be objectionable to a reasonable person.

So if you bring yourself out to the public eye, then that is not an invasion but if you are in your home, that is invasion.

The invasion has to be about something private usually within the pl’s own private domain

Is there a difference between private and public figures in publishing facts that place pl in a false light?

What did the Supreme court hold relating to this?

there is a different between a private and public person

We are talking about false statements and statements based on this tort Supreme Ct. held Time vs. Hill that the libel will only be libel if it is done with malice if it is related to a matter of the public interest.

The false light is based on the giant audience.

1)    Consent- I consented to you putting my picture in your shop window (implied or express)

2) Any defense based on absolute or qualified privilege (defamation)

Fraud/Deceit vs. Negligent Misrepresentation

(aside from the business setting difference)

These are intentional representational whereas in negligent misrepresentation is a mistake

In fraud and deceit is where you know you are misrepresenting info to anotherv 

1) Misrepresentation by defendant

2) Def must know that it was a representation (Scienter)

3) Intent to induce pl's reliance on misrepresentation

4) causation (ie actual reliance on the misrepresentation)

5) Justfiable reliance

6) Damages

When a person is under duty to disclose a fact and fails to do it that is intentional misrepresentation. So just as an act includes a failure to act and overt misrepresentation is the same thing as failing to disclose information

With the intent to induce reliance the def has to have intend to induce the pl or the class of pls to act or refrain from acting in reliance on the misrepresentation

Negligent Misrepresentation

What is it generally? And the PF elements

 It’s a misrepresentation by the def in a business setting or a professional capacity If it’s not in a business or professional capacity- there is no knowing element.

1) Rather there is a duty that is owed by the defendant to the particular pl 

2) that duty is breached

3)    Causation

4)    Justifiable reliance

5)    Damages.

In a negligent misrepresentation case, it’s confined just to the commercial transaction and is much more confined than in deceit case.

The duty will attach only if it was to the personss to whom the misrepresentation was made were acting in a business setting.

What is present in both misrepresentation by fraud and deceit and negligenct misrepresentation?

How does superior knowledge affect this?

Example?

In both, reliance on fact is almost always justified. The pl must prove that their reliance was justified. Where the def asserts facts based on their superior knowledge, based on statements of law, those statements of fact will always be justified. The courts do not require the pl do not require the pl to investigation the veracity of the  def’s representations, if they are held out n fact based on superior knowledge

So if atty or para makes statements based in law, those statements are shadowed by opinion and the pl has to prove that the statements made as a matter of law were made not as opinions but as facts. This is where suprerio knowledge rules.

Statements of future events are almost always considered opinions and such opinions were not justifiable reliance. So if def can show that the statements made were only opinions and not statements in facts, then he will not be held liable (re justifiable reliance).

False light

What does the plaintiff have to show?

What standard is used to determine this?

What has to happen if the statement is a matter of public interest?

the pl must show that the publication of facts place the pl in a false light in the public eye- so it’s go to be a lot of people- like a billboard or internet and is only made for those claims that are wide open to the universe.

The publication of the false light must be objectionable to a reasonable person.

Pl MUST show that the defendant acted with malice when he published the statement of false light if the statement has to do with public interest.

So. I.e. a statement published saying that a person holds a view that they do not hold. Another example would be that the def accuses the pl of taking actions that he did not take

According to Wikipedia, what are the general PF elements for a false light suit?

(wikipedia seems to assume it's for a public figure)

1. A publication by the Defendant about the Plaintiff;
2. made with actual malice (very similar to that type required by New York Times v. Sullivan in "Defamation" cases);
3. which places the Plaintiff in a false light; AND
4. that would be highly offensive (i.e., embarrassing to reasonable persons).^[1]