Scuito V. National Tattler Case Study
Ray Bolger has a claim against his employer, Homer Zuckerman, for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion after Zuckerman suspected Bolger of malingering and sent another employee to secretly videotape Bolger in his home. Due to the doctrine of respondeat superior, Zuckerman bears the responsibility for his employee’s actions that he ordered. Ever since Abby Scuito successfully sued a member of the paparazzi for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion after he broke into her hospital room, Oklahoma has recognized this tort. Scuito v. National Tattler, Inc., 246 P.2d 357, 358. Intrusion upon seclusion is an intentional tort that requires an unauthorized and unreasonable intrusion into another party’s privacy. McGee v. Gemcity Publishers, Inc., 2010
…show more content…
Zuckerman asked another employee, Jack Haley, to surveil Bolger’s activities and provided a camera to record those activities. After several days of filming Bolger in public places, Haley did not have any useful footage. Haley secured an invitation into Bolger’s house by pretending to be interested in purchasing a used Wii Bolger was selling. Haley secretly filmed Bolger engaging in strenuous activity for several hours while they were inside Bolger’s house. Haley then turned the video over to Zuckerman. Jack Haley’s actions, as directed by Homer Zuckerman, fulfill all the elements of the tort of intrusion upon …show more content…
Having his private activities and private possessions from within his house published in a video he did not consent to would be offensive to a reasonable person. In McGee III, the court held that an employer’s intrusion into a former employee’s phone records was unreasonable because “the records could have revealed a wide variety of private matters.” McGee III, 2010 OK 618 at ¶ 2. Similarly, the video made in Bolger’s house could have revealed any number of private matters. The video could have captured any sensitive materials that were out or recorded private conversations that were even only faintly audible. The fact that Bolger’s private affairs are on a video that has been viewed by Zuckerman and are in a format that can easily be disseminated to the public is what makes the intrusion unreasonable. Thus, element requiring the intrusion to be unreasonable has been
Zuckerman asked another employee, Jack Haley, to surveil Bolger’s activities and provided a camera to record those activities. After several days of filming Bolger in public places, Haley did not have any useful footage. Haley secured an invitation into Bolger’s house by pretending to be interested in purchasing a used Wii Bolger was selling. Haley secretly filmed Bolger engaging in strenuous activity for several hours while they were inside Bolger’s house. Haley then turned the video over to Zuckerman. Jack Haley’s actions, as directed by Homer Zuckerman, fulfill all the elements of the tort of intrusion upon …show more content…
Having his private activities and private possessions from within his house published in a video he did not consent to would be offensive to a reasonable person. In McGee III, the court held that an employer’s intrusion into a former employee’s phone records was unreasonable because “the records could have revealed a wide variety of private matters.” McGee III, 2010 OK 618 at ¶ 2. Similarly, the video made in Bolger’s house could have revealed any number of private matters. The video could have captured any sensitive materials that were out or recorded private conversations that were even only faintly audible. The fact that Bolger’s private affairs are on a video that has been viewed by Zuckerman and are in a format that can easily be disseminated to the public is what makes the intrusion unreasonable. Thus, element requiring the intrusion to be unreasonable has been