CopyCited 31 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Dec 23, 2019
...to plead facts
rendering plausible their allegation that identity thieves obtained sensitive
information as a result of theft of defendant’s computers, as opposed to from a
third party).
17
under either OCGA §
10-1-393.8, OCGA §
10-1-910, or purported
common law duty “to all the world not to subject others to an
unreasonable risk of harm” — to protect his personal information
from inadvertent, negligent disclosure (citation and punctuation
omitted))....
CopyCited 25 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 20, 2019 | 305 Ga. 812
...l argues is based on a purported common law duty "to all the world not to subject [others] to an unreasonable risk of harm," Bradley Center, Inc. v. Wessner ,
250 Ga. 199, 201,
296 S.E.2d 693 (1982) (opinion of Gregory, J.), and two statutes, OCGA §§
10-1-393.8 and
10-1-910.
In Bradley Center , the lead opinion, which only two Justices joined, said that everyone owes a general duty not to subject others to an "unreasonable risk of harm" and may be liable for any breach of **816that duty that causes harm to another....
...l legal duty "to all the world not to subject [others] to an unreasonable risk of harm."
250 Ga. at 201,
296 S.E.2d 693.4 We therefore reject McConnell's reliance upon Bradley Center .
McConnell also argues that two statutes, OCGA §§
10-1-910 and
10-1-393.8, created a legal duty on the part of the Department to safeguard his and the other proposed class members' personal information....
...But OCGA §
10-1-910 does not explicitly establish any duty, nor does it prohibit or require any conduct at all. Rather, the statute recites a series of legislative findings about the vulnerability of personal information and the risk of identity theft. And while OCGA §
10-1-393.8 (a) (1) says that no "person, firm, or corporation" shall "[p]ublicly post or publicly display in any manner an individual's social security number," the statute then immediately adds, "As used in this Code section, 'publicly post' or 'publicly display' means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public." The complaint alleged only a negligent disclosure, not an intentional one. Even assuming that OCGA §
10-1-393.8 (a) (1) creates a duty enforceable in tort to refrain from intentionally disclosing social security numbers, McConnell has not shown that the Department owed him or the other proposed class members a duty to protect their information against negligent disclosure....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 20, 2019
...risk of harm.”
250 Ga. at 201.4 We therefore reject McConnell’s reliance upon
4 Court of Appeals cases relying on Bradley Center’s language are
Bradley Center.
McConnell also argues that two statutes, OCGA §§
10-1-910
and
10-1-393.8, created a legal duty on the part of the Department
to safeguard his and the other proposed class members’ personal
information....
...But OCGA §
10-1-910 does not explicitly establish any
duty, nor does it prohibit or require any conduct at all. Rather, the
statute recites a series of legislative findings about the vulnerability
of personal information and the risk of identity theft. And while
OCGA §
10-1-393.8 (a) (1) says that no “person, firm, or corporation”
shall “[p]ublicly post or publicly display in any manner an
individual’s social security number,” the statute then immediately
adds, “As used in this Code section, ‘publicly post’ or ‘publicly
display’ means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make
available to the general public.” The complaint alleged only a
negligent disclosure, not an intentional one. Even assuming that
OCGA §
10-1-393.8 (a) (1) creates a duty enforceable in tort to
overruled, see, e.g., Lowry v....