Hall v. Post
323 N.C. 259, 372 S.E.2d 711 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
North Carolina does not recognize a cause of action for the tort of invasion of privacy by public disclosure of truthful but private facts. Such a claim is not cognizable at law because it is constitutionally suspect under the First Amendment and largely duplicates the existing tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Facts:
- In 1967, Aledith Gottschalk and her former husband, a carnival barker, abandoned their four-month-old daughter in Rowan County, leaving her with a babysitter named Mary Hall.
- Mary Hall subsequently adopted the child, who became known as Susie Hall.
- Seventeen years later, in July 1984, Aledith Gottschalk returned to Rowan County to search for her biological daughter.
- The Salisbury Post, a newspaper, published an article written by reporter Rose Post about Gottschalk's search, seeking help from the public.
- After the article was published, tips from the public led Gottschalk to locate her daughter.
- The Salisbury Post then published a second article that identified Susie Hall as the abandoned child and Mary Hall as her adoptive mother, detailing the emotional reactions of the families.
- Susie Hall and Mary Hall alleged that the articles caused them severe emotional and mental distress, forcing them to flee their home to avoid public attention and seek psychiatric care.
Procedural Posture:
- Susie Hall and Mary Hall filed separate civil actions against The Salisbury Post and Rose Post for invasion of privacy in the state trial court.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment in both actions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants.
- The plaintiffs, Susie and Mary Hall, appealed the trial court's decision to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that summary judgment was improperly granted.
- The defendants, The Salisbury Post and Rose Post, petitioned the Supreme Court of North Carolina for discretionary review, which was granted.
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 North Carolina common law recognize a cause of action for tortious invasion of privacy by the truthful public disclosure of private facts?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Mitchell
No. North Carolina common law does not recognize a cause of action for tortious invasion of privacy by the truthful public disclosure of private facts. The court refuses to adopt this tort for two primary reasons. First, such a claim is constitutionally suspect and would increase the existing tension between the First Amendment's protection of free speech and the law of torts. Second, it would largely duplicate existing claims for relief, particularly the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, while offering little practical value to plaintiffs. Citing its prior rejection of the 'false light' invasion of privacy tort in Renwick v. News and Observer, the court concluded that the potential benefits of recognizing this new tort are insufficient to justify punishing the publication of truthful information.
Concurrence - Justice Frye
Concurring in the result, but disagreeing with the majority's reasoning. While the tort of public disclosure of private facts should be cognizable in North Carolina, the defendants are still entitled to summary judgment in this specific case. The majority is wrong to completely reject the cause of action. The court should instead adopt the tort but recognize a constitutional privilege for publishing information that is of legitimate public concern or 'newsworthy.' In this case, the story of a mother searching for a child she abandoned 17 years prior is undeniably newsworthy. Therefore, as a matter of law, the publication was privileged, and the plaintiffs' claim fails on that basis, not because the tort itself is invalid.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies North Carolina's position as a jurisdiction that is highly protective of First Amendment press freedoms, even at the expense of individual privacy interests regarding truthful information. By explicitly rejecting the public disclosure of private facts tort, the court aligned this area of law with its previous rejection of the 'false light' tort in Renwick. The ruling forces potential plaintiffs in North Carolina who have had true but embarrassing facts published about them to pursue claims under different, and often harder to prove, theories like Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, creating a significant barrier to recovery for privacy-based harms arising from truthful publications.
Unlock the full brief for Hall v. Post