Dana v. Oak Park Marina, Inc.
660 N.Y.S.2d 906 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's violation of a statute can establish the duty of care required for a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, even if the statute does not create a private cause of action. The statute of limitations for a claim of reckless infliction of emotional distress begins to run not from the date of the defendant's wrongful act, but from the date the plaintiff discovers the act and suffers emotional harm.
Facts:
- Oak Park Marina, Inc., owned and operated a marina on Lake Ontario.
- The marina facilities included men's and ladies' restrooms with changing areas, showers, and toilets for patrons.
- In 1993, the corporation installed a video surveillance camera in each of the restrooms, purportedly to detect and curb vandalism.
- A plaintiff, who was a patron of the marina, used the ladies' restroom facilities.
- The plaintiff and approximately 150 to 200 other female patrons were videotaped in various stages of undress without their knowledge or consent.
- The individual defendants, who were officers of the corporation, and others viewed the videotapes.
- The videotapes were allegedly displayed to others for purposes of trade.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff commenced a class action lawsuit against Oak Park Marina, Inc. and its officers in the New York Supreme Court, the state's trial court.
- Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging causes of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress, reckless infliction of emotional distress, sex discrimination, violation of Civil Rights Law § 51, and breach of contract.
- Defendants filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the claims as time-barred and for failure to state a cause of action.
- The Supreme Court (trial court) granted the motion to dismiss the sex discrimination claim but denied the motion as to all other claims.
- Defendants, as appellants, appealed the trial court's partial denial of their motion to dismiss to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court. The plaintiff is the appellee.
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 defendant's violation of a statute prohibiting secret video surveillance in a restroom establish a duty of care sufficient to support a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, and does the statute of limitations for a claim of reckless infliction of emotional distress accrue upon the wrongful act or upon the plaintiff's discovery of that act?
Opinions:
Majority - Balio, J.
Yes. A defendant's violation of a statute can establish a duty of care for a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, and the statute of limitations for a reckless infliction of emotional distress claim accrues upon the plaintiff's discovery of the wrongful conduct. For the negligence claim, the court found that while no common-law right to privacy or innkeeper's duty existed, General Business Law § 395-b, which prohibits cameras in restrooms, establishes a statutory duty owed to the plaintiff. The breach of this statutory duty can serve as the basis for a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress. For the recklessness claim, the court held that New York recognizes the tort, which is encompassed within intentional infliction of emotional distress. An essential element of this tort is the plaintiff's suffering of severe emotional distress. Therefore, the cause of action does not accrue, and the statute of limitations does not begin to run, until the plaintiff actually suffers that distress, which occurred upon her discovery of the secret videotaping, not when the act of videotaping took place.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing two key principles in New York tort law. First, it provides a pathway for plaintiffs to establish the duty element in negligent infliction of emotional distress claims by pointing to the violation of a statute, even if that statute does not explicitly grant a private right to sue. This expands potential liability for premises owners who violate privacy or safety statutes. Second, it solidifies the application of a 'discovery rule' for the statute of limitations in intentional/reckless infliction of emotional distress cases, preventing wrongdoers from benefiting by concealing their conduct until the limitations period expires. This ensures that the clock for filing a lawsuit begins when the victim becomes aware of the harm, which is particularly important in cases involving latent or secretly committed torts.
Unlock the full brief for Dana v. Oak Park Marina, Inc.