Clayton v. Richards
2000 WL 33310011, 47 S.W.3d 149, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 2997 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A third-party agent assisting a spouse in surreptitiously videotaping the other spouse in their marital bedroom without consent may be held liable for the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, as individuals retain an expectation of privacy even within a marriage.
Facts:
- Marie Clayton, suspicious that her husband Gary Clayton was committing adultery, hired private investigator James Michael Richards d/b/a An Ounce of Prevention in May 1999.
- Marie Clayton rented video surveillance equipment from Richards, including a camera disguised as an AM/FM radio, a remote receiver, and a video tape recorder.
- Richards, accompanied by Marie Clayton, set up the recording equipment in a spare bedroom of the Clayton marital home.
- Marie Clayton then placed the disguised camera in the marital bedroom, on her nightstand, facing the doorway.
- Marie Clayton subsequently left to visit her family in Virginia.
- While Marie was in Virginia, Richards, at her request, gained access to the Clayton home via a key provided by a neighbor (arranged by Marie) and changed the videotape in the recording device.
- During the entire period the bedroom was being videotaped, Gary Clayton was the sole occupant of the home and bedroom and did not give permission for entry or recording.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Randall Clayton filed a civil action in trial court against James Michael Richards d/b/a An Ounce of Prevention and Marie D. Clayton.
- Defendant James Michael Richards filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
- The trial court granted James Michael Richards's Motion for Summary Judgment.
- The trial court denied Marie D. Clayton's Motion for Summary Judgment.
- The summary judgment in favor of Richards was severed from the action against Marie D. Clayton and designated as a final judgment (Trial Court Cause No. D-162,111-A).
- Gary Randall Clayton filed a timely Notice of Appeal from the summary judgment in favor of Richards to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana (appellant Gary Clayton, appellee James Michael Richards).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private investigator, acting as an agent for one spouse, commit the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion when he aids in the secret installation and maintenance of a video camera in the marital bedroom to record the other spouse without consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice GRANT
Yes, a private investigator acting at the direction of a spouse can be held liable for the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion when he aids in the secret installation and maintenance of a video camera in the marital bedroom to record the other spouse without consent. The court reasoned that Texas law protects personal privacy from unreasonable intrusion and guarantees the sanctity of the home and person. While a spouse shares equal rights in the marital bedroom, the act of surreptitiously videotaping another person in that highly private space, without their consent or awareness, goes beyond these shared rights. Such conduct can be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person due to the inherent expectation of privacy in a bedroom and the potential for later public exposure of private matters. The court noted that a private investigator who merely furnishes technical services but knowingly aids in tortious acts can be held liable as an agent. The fact that Richards was acting at Marie Clayton's request did not shield him from liability if her actions were tortious and he aided her. The court highlighted that although adultery is no longer a crime in Texas, it is still not favored by law, and the issue here concerns a tortious invasion of privacy, not criminal conduct. Given the summary judgment evidence, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Richards's actions constituted an invasion of Gary Clayton's privacy.
Concurring - Justice ROSS
Yes, the reasoning established in wiretapping laws, which prohibit interspousal wiretapping and protect privacy against third-party intrusions, logically extends to secret videotaping of a spouse by a third party. Justice Ross emphasized that this case presented an issue of first impression and found it helpful to analyze it in relation to established federal and state wiretapping laws. He noted that these laws, which typically have no exception for acts between spouses, demonstrate a strong underlying concern for privacy rights, particularly against third-party intrusions into the marital union. While videotaping does not technically fall under wiretapping statutes, the concurring justice argued that an individual's right to privacy is compromised no less, and often more, by secret videotaping than by secret audio recording. He concluded that if unauthorized recording of a telephone conversation by one spouse against another violates the unconsenting spouse's right of privacy, then unauthorized videotaping of a spouse's actions equally violates that right, especially when a third party is involved.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of privacy rights within a marriage under Texas law, particularly concerning technological intrusions. It establishes that even between spouses sharing a home, there remains an expectation of privacy in highly personal spaces like the bedroom, which cannot be violated by surreptitious recording, especially with the aid of a third party. The ruling expands the application of the intrusion upon seclusion tort to modern surveillance methods and reinforces that aiding and abetting a tortious act, even if instigated by a spouse, can lead to liability for a third-party agent. This case serves as a warning to private investigators and others who assist in domestic surveillance, emphasizing the potential for tort liability despite the absence of public dissemination.
