invasion of privacy claim in Minnesota

2025Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Minn. 1998); Swarthout v. Mut.

2015In this case, the elements of Expose’s invasion-of-privacy claim require proof that Mattson published a statement that concerned his private life,. that the statement “would be highly offensive to a reasonable person,” and that the statement “is not of legitimate concern to the public.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn.2003) (quotations omitted); see also Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn. 1998) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D .(1977)).

2017In Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., the supreme court clarified the definition of “publicity” by holding that publicity means that “the matter is made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or to so many persons that the matter must be 6 regarded as substantially certain to become one of public knowledge.” 663 N.W.2d 550, 557 (Minn. 2003) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D cmt. a). 2 Here, the district court dismissed the Does’ invasion of privacy claim because it was undisputed that respondents did not publish any private facts to the “public at large,” as requir

2015In this case, the elements of Expose’s invasion-of-privacy claim require proof that Mattson published a statement that concerned his private life,. that the statement “would be highly offensive to a reasonable person,” and that the statement “is not of legitimate concern to the public.” Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn.2003) (quotations omitted); see also Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Minn. 1998) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D .(1977)).

2003By contrast, where defendants threatened to disseminate a “Dead-Beat Parent” poster to the public at large but in fact only delivered the poster to the plaintiffs employer and a few close relatives, distribution to this “handful of people” was insufficient to constitute “publicity.” Jones v. United States Child Support Recovery, 961 F.Supp. 1518, 1520-21 (D.Utah 1997); see also Hendry v. Conner, 303 Minn. 317, 319 , 226 N.W.2d 921, 922-23 (1975) (concluding, pre-Lafce, that statement made by hospital credit department employee in loud voice in the presence of people in waiting room that plaint

2003By contrast, where defendants threatened to disseminate a “Dead-Beat Parent” poster to the public at large but in fact only delivered the poster to the plaintiffs employer and a few close relatives, distribution to this “handful of people” was insufficient to constitute “publicity.” Jones v. United States Child Support Recovery, 961 F.Supp. 1518, 1520-21 (D.Utah 1997); see also Hendry v. Conner, 303 Minn. 317, 319 , 226 N.W.2d 921, 922-23 (1975) (concluding, pre-Lafce, that statement made by hospital credit department employee in loud voice in the presence of people in waiting room that plaint

2015See, e.g., Dickhoff, 836 N.W.2d at 329 (applying section 145.682 to medical-malpractice claim); see also Brown-Wilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., P.L.L.P., 732 N.W.2d 209, 219 (Minn.2007) (applying Minnesota Statutes section 544.42, subdivision 2, to accountant-malpractice claim).

2009“Publicity” therefore occurs on the act that disseminates the information “to the public at large,” which is the printing, distribution, or utterance in the public forum. -Although the damages calculation for invasion of privacy might be influenced by the extent to which the publicity was effective, see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652H cmt. b (explaining that damages recoverable under an invasion-of-privacy claim closely resemble damages recoverable for defamation); cf. Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153, 160 (Minn. App.2007) (permitting recovery in defamation for the injury to reputat

2009Although the damages calculation for invasion of privacy might be influenced *45 by the extent to which the publicity was effective, see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652H cmt. b (explaining that damages recoverable under an invasion-of-privacy claim closely resemble damages recoverable for defamation); cf. Longbehn v. Schoenrock, 727 N.W.2d 153, 160 (Minn. App.2007) (permitting recovery in defamation for the injury to reputation), a determination that publicity occurred does not require a large actual audience.

2003Mar. 28, 2000) (concluding that if Purdy were to publish 800 employees’ salaries and social security numbers on the Internet, the employees would likely succeed on an invasion of privacy claim); Brents v. Morgan, 221 Ky. 765 , 299 S.W. 967, 968, 971 (1927) (exemplifying “publicity” under the Restatement— posting a 5-by 8-foot notice calling attention to a customer’s overdue account in a show window of an automobile garage constitutes publicity); Biederman’s of Springfield, Inc. v. Wright, 322 S.W.2d 892, 898 (Mo.1959) (holding that loud declarations of indebtedness in a public restaurant const

2003Mar. 28, 2000) (concluding that if Purdy were to publish 800 employees’ salaries and social security numbers on the Internet, the employees would likely succeed on an invasion of privacy claim); Brents v. Morgan, 221 Ky. 765 , 299 S.W. 967, 968, 971 (1927) (exemplifying “publicity” under the Restatement— posting a 5-by 8-foot notice calling attention to a customer’s overdue account in a show window of an automobile garage constitutes publicity); Biederman’s of Springfield, Inc. v. Wright, 322 S.W.2d 892, 898 (Mo.1959) (holding that loud declarations of indebtedness in a public restaurant const

2003Mar. 28, 2000) (concluding that if Purdy were to publish 800 employees’ salaries and social security numbers on the Internet, the employees would likely succeed on an invasion of privacy claim); Brents v. Morgan, 221 Ky. 765 , 299 S.W. 967, 968, 971 (1927) (exemplifying “publicity” under the Restatement— posting a 5-by 8-foot notice calling attention to a customer’s overdue account in a show window of an automobile garage constitutes publicity); Biederman’s of Springfield, Inc. v. Wright, 322 S.W.2d 892, 898 (Mo.1959) (holding that loud declarations of indebtedness in a public restaurant const

2003By contrast, where defendants threatened to disseminate a “Dead-Beat Parent” poster to the public at large but in fact only delivered the poster to the plaintiffs employer and a few close relatives, distribution to this “handful of people” was insufficient to constitute “publicity.” Jones v. United States Child Support Recovery, 961 F.Supp. 1518, 1520-21 (D.Utah 1997); see also Hendry v. Conner, 303 Minn. 317, 319 , 226 N.W.2d 921, 922-23 (1975) (concluding, pre-Lafce, that statement made by hospital credit department employee in loud voice in the presence of people in waiting room that plaint